.//- 


£/ 


£./^,  ^ca^^- 


y^ 


^ 


UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


GAIRON  &  CATRON 


A  TREATISE 


ON  THE  LAW  OF 


MECHANICS'  LIENS 

INCLUDING  THE  PROCEDURE 

FOR  PERFECTING  AND  ENFORCING  SUCH 

LIENS,  TOGETHER  WITH 

COMPLETE  FORMS 


By 


WILLIAM  M.  ROCKEL 

Former  Judge  of  Probate  Court  and  Author  of 
Ohio  Probate  Law  and  Practice 


INDIANAPOLIS 

THE  BOBBS-MERRILL  COMPANY 

1909 


T 


Copyright  1909 

BY  THE  BOBBS-MERRILL  COMPANY 


^-  V 


PREFACE 


Mechanics'  liens  are  of  modern  origin  and  the  law  upon  the 
subject  is  the  only  great  branch  of  our  law  that  is  entirely 
of  American  origin  and  has  had  its  development  wholly  among 
the  English-speaking  people  of  this  continent. 

Great  Britain,  the  mother  country,  to  whose  jurisprudence 
we  are  indebted  for  the  fundamental  principles  of  much  the 
greater  part  of  our  law,  has  not  even  to  this  day  laws  affording 
relief  and  protection  to  that  very  deserving  class  of  citizens 
that  come  within  the  design  of  our  statutes  relating  to 
mechanics'  liens.  While  the  civil  law  in  a  measure  gave 
protection  to  this  class  of  persons,  yet  it  has  not  been  generally 
followed  in  the  Latin  republics. 

All  liens,  whether  of  common  law,  civil  law  or  statutory 
origin,  are  founded  upon  the  same  equitable  principles,  and, 
therefore,  we  find  that  while  there  is  much  difference  in  the 
details  of  the  various  statutes  of  the  several  states,  and  much 
that  cannot  be  used  as  precedent  in  all  jurisdictions,  3'et  there 
is  much  in  common  in  these  statutes  and  decisions,  and  the 
judges  of  one  jurisdiction  look  with  favor  on  the  decisions  of 
those  in  another. 

In  the  following  pages  the  law  of  mechanics'  liens  is  set  out 
in  a  systematic  way.  The  author  has  avoided  unqualified 
statements  of  the  law  where  the  decisions  are  in  conflict,  and 
having  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  conflicts  in  most  cases  are  due 
to  a  difference  in  the  statutes,  has  adopted  the  method  of 
setting  out  the  opposite  holdings  in  such  cases.  The  decisions 
have  all  been  personally  examined. 

There  is  a  growth  toward  uniformity  in  the  statutes  of  the 
different  commonwealths  and  a  consequent  tendency  toward 
uniformity  in  the  decisions,  and  it  will  not  be  long  until  the 

(iii) 


IV  PREFACE. 

law  relating  to  mechanics'  liens  will  be  as  stable  and  uniform 
and  as  well  settled  as  any  other  distinct  branch  of  English  law. 

The  subject  is  not  given  an  abstract  treatment,  but  in  order 
to  make  the  book  most  useful  to  the  profession  the  entire 
procedure  necessary  to  the  establishment  and  the  enforcement 
or  defeat  of  the  lien  is  presented.  The  same  consideration 
of  usefulness  has  induced  the  insertion  of  working  forms  at 
appropriate  places  throughout  the  book. 

The  table  of  cases  will  show  what  a  fruitful  source  of 
litigation  the  subject  of  mechanics'  liens  has  been;  and  as 
practically  all  the  reported  decisions  have  been  examined,  it 
is  confidently  believed  that  a  more  extensive  and  more 
thorough  discussion  of  this  important  subject  will  be  found  in 
the  following  pages  than  in  any  book  issued. 

In  order  to  make  the  book  useful  in  connection  with  the 
lawyers'  library  parallel  references  have  been  given  to  the 
Reporter  System,  the  L.  R.  A.,  the  American  Decisions,  the 
American  Reports  and  the  American  State  Reports.  References 
are  likewise  made  to  the  sections  (key  numbers)  of  the 
Decennial  and  American  Digests,  so  that  later  cases  on  similar 
matters  may  be  readily  found. 

The  author  first  became  interested  in  the  subject  of  mechanics' 
liens  more  than  twenty  years  ago,  and  that  interest,  in  various 
ways — as  judge,  attorney  and  author — has  since  been  maintained. 
He  submits  this  work  with  the  belief  that  the  manner  in  which 
the  law  has  been  gleaned  from  the  multitude  of  reports  and 
its  classification  and  grouping  herein  will  be  a  useful  aid 
toward  reaching  the  desired  uniformity  in  the  law  and  will 
give  to  the  active  practitioner  a  speedy  way  to  "find  the  law" 
and  assist  him  in  its  proper  administration  and  thereby 
accomplish  the  beneficent  purposes  intended  by  mechanics' 
lien  laws.  ,  WILLIAM  M.  ROCKEL. 

Springfield,  Ohio,  May  25th,  1909. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  1. 


ORIGIN   AND    GENERAL    PRINCIPLES. 


Sec. 

1.  Origin. 

2.  Nature   and   definition. 

3.  Law  of  place   where   building 
located  controls. 

4.  Constitutionality. 

5.  Enactment  of  laws. 

6.  Operation  of  repeal  or  change 
of  law. 


Sec. 

7.  Retroactive   effect. 

8.  Construction  of  law. 

9.  To    whom     right     granted     to 
secure   lien. 

10.  Property  that  may  be  subject 
to  lien. 

11.  Quantity  of  interest  or  estate 
subject  to  lien. 


CHAPTER  2. 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


Sec.  3ec 

12.  Character   of   "building,"    "re-  21. 
pair,"   etc.,   giving  a   lien. 

13.  Character   of    "building,"    "re- 
pair,"   etc.,    giving    a      lien. —  22. 
Continued.  23. 

14.  Character  of  "building" — Fix- 
tures. 24. 

15.  Character    of    "building" — Ap-  25. 
purtenances. 

16.  Kind  of  services  giving  a  lien.  26. 

17.  Kind  of  services   on  building.  27. 

18.  Kind  of  material  giving  a  lien. 

19.  Kind     of     material     used     in  28. 
building.  29. 

20.  Kind  of  material  furnished  on  30. 
credit  of  building.  31. 


Intent  with  which  services 
are  rendered  or  materials 
furnished. 

Intent,  on  particular  building. 
Penalty    for    wrongful    use   of 
material — Ohio    statute. 
Contract,    necessity   for. 
Contract,    necessity    for — Con- 
tinued. 

Contract  with  owner. 
Contract     with     owner — Con- 
tinued. 

Who  is  owner — Ohio  statute. 
Capacity  to  contract. 
Contract — Authority   to   make. 
Contract — Authority    to    make 
— Continued. 


(v) 


VI 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  2— Continued. 


Sec. 

32.  Sufficiency    of    contract. 

33.  Contract,  necessity  for  writ- 
ten. 

34.  Contract — Terms  and  times  of 
payment. 

35.  Contract — Express  or  implied 
— Estoppel. 

36.  Contract — Express  or  implied 
— Improvements. 

37.  Contract — Express  or  implied 
— Wife's  property. 

38.  Contract  with  married  women 
— Executor's  right — Ohio  stat- 
ute. 

39.  Contract  with  married  women 
— Continued. 

40.  Contract — Ratification. 

41.  Contract — Filing  notice. 

42.  Notice  from  owner  to  prevent 
lien. 

43.  Persons  entitled  to  lien  by 
direct  contract. 

44.  Contractor's  lien — Ohio  stat- 
ute. 

1.  Construction    generally. 

2.  Who   may   acquire. 

3.  Kind  of  services. 

4.  Character  of  structure 
subject  to  lien. 

5.  Contract  with  owner. 

6.  Who   is  owner. 

7.  Leasehold. 

8.  Estate  and  extent  of  in- 
terest liable. 

9.  Lien  for  labor  on  and  ma- 
terials for  roads,  streets, 
ditches,  sewers,  etc. 

10.  Abutting    land    owner. 

45.  Indiana  statute  —  Re-enact- 
ment. 

45a.  Contractor's  and  sub-con- 
tractor's lien — Indiana  stat- 
ute. 


Sec. 

1.  Generally. 

2.  Who  may  acquire. 

3.  Character  of  labor  or  ma- 
terial. 

4.  Property  subject  to. 

5.  Contract. 

6.  Contract  with  owner. 

7.  Estate  or  interest. 

8.  Separate   and   joint  liens. 

9.  Extent  of  land  included. 
10.  Builders'  bond. 

46.  Claim    for    wages   —   Indiana 
^;;;^statute. 
/47yhlaterial   men  entitled  to   lien 
by  direct  contract. 

48.  Contractors — Who   are. 

49.  Contractors — Performance  of 
contract. 

50.  Remedy  where  owner  sus- 
pends  work — Ohio   statute. 

51.  Construction  of  statute. 

52.  Construction  of  statute — 
Rights    of    sub-contractor. 

53.  Lien  to  person  not  under  di- 
rect contract  with  owner. 

54.  Different  systems  for  liens  to 
persons  not  under  direct  con- 
tract. 

55.  Contract,  where  lien  is  not 
under  direct  contract  with 
owner. 

56.  Contract — Notice  to  owner. 

57.  Contracts — Stipulations  affect- 
ing rights  of  sub-contractors. 

58.  Persons  entitled  to  lien  as 
subcontractors. 

59.  Sub-contractor's  lien  on  fund 
— Ohio  statute. 

60.  Sub-contractor's  lien  —  Ohio 
statute — Who  may  acquire — 
Character  of  structure. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


VU 


CHAPTER  2— Continued. 


Sec. 

61.  Sub-contractor's  Hen  —  Ohio 
statute — Character  of  work — 
Contract. 

62.  Sub-contractor's  lien  —  Ohio 
statute — Procedure. 

63.  Sub-contractor's  lien  —  Ohio 
statute — Form  of  lien  state- 
ment. 

64.  Performance  of  principal  con- 
tract as  affecting  those  not 
under  direct  contract  with  the 
owner. 

65.  Performance  of  principal  con- 
tract as  affecting  sub-con- 
tractors— Stipulations  in  con- 
tract. 


Sec. 

66.  Matters  affecting  rights  of 
those  not  under  direct  con- 
tract with  the  owner. 

67.  Payment  to  principal  contrac- 
tor, as  affecting  those  not  un- 
der direct  contract  with  the 
ow'ner. 

68.  Advance  and  premature  pay- 
ments as  affecting  persons 
not  under  direct  contract. 

69.  Wrongful  payment  by  owner 
— Ohio  statute. 

70.  Wrongful  payment  by  owner 
— Ohio  statute — What  are  ad- 
vance payments. 


CHAPTER  3. 

PROCEEDINGS    REQUIRED    ON    PART    OP    CLAIMANT    TO    PERFECT 

LIEN. 


Sec.  Sec. 

71.  Statute     must     be     followed 
and  lien  perfected. 

72.  Notice  to  owner  generally. 

73.  Notice  to   owner — Waiver. 

74.  Notice    to    owner — To    whom 
given. 

75.  Notice  to  owner — When^i-v>- 
en. 

76.  Notice    to    owner — Form    and 
requisites. 

77.  Notice      to     owner — Descrip- 
tion of  property — Service. 

78.  Service  of  notice— Ohio  stat-        82. 
ute. 

79.  Filing  contract — Notice. 

80.  Filing  claim   or   statement. 

81.  Lien   of   principal  contractor 

— How    acquired — Ohio    stat-        83. 
ute.  i 


1.  Who  can  file. 

2.  When  to   be   filed. 

3.  Where  to  be  filed. 

4.  AlHdavit. 

5.  Verification  of  affidavit. 

6.  Itemized    statement. 

7.  Promissory  note. 

8.  Contract — Copy   of. 

9.  Description   of  land. 

10.  Date  of  lien. 

11.  Duration  of  lien. 

12.  Notice  to  owner. 

Lien — How  acquired — Prin- 
cipal and  subcontractor — In- 
diana   statute. 

1.  Who  may  acquire. 

2.  Claim  due  or  not  due. 
Lien    —   Filing    —    Duration 
— Indiana    statute. 


VIU 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  2— Continued. 


Sec.  Sec. 

1.  When  to  be  filed.  95. 

2.  Notice. 

3.  Itemized  statement.  96. 

4.  Description  of  premises. 

5.  Date  of  lien. 

6.  Duration  of  lien.  97. 

84.  Lien  —  Exemptions  —   Pri- 
ority— Form — Indiana     ;stat-        98. 
ute. 

85.  Claim  or  statement  on  one  or 
more     buildings    or    lots     of        99. 
land. 

86.  Claim     or     statement — Place 
and  mode  of  filing. 

87.  Filing  notice  by  subconj^rac-      100. 
tor    with,   recorder   to   notify 
fellow     laborers — Ohio     stat-      101. 
ute. 

88.  When  and  how  subcontractor 

may  obtain  lien  on  the  prop-      102. 
erty     of     the     owner — Ohio 
statute.  103. 

1.  Generally. 

2.  By  whom  filed.  104. 

3.  Form    of    lien  of    subcon- 
tractor. 105. 

89.  Lien  entitled  to  priority  over 

lien     of     head     contractor —      106. 
Ohio  statute. 

90.  Claim    or    statement — Notice      107. 
of   filing. 

91.  Upon  notice  owner  shall  re-      108. 
tain     subsequent      payments 

due     contractor — Ohio     stat- 
ute. 109. 

92.  Copy  of  statement  to  be  fur- 
nished  head    contractor — His      110. 
duty — Ohio  statute. 

93.  Notice    to    head   contractor — 
Priority  of   liens — Ohio   stat-      111. 
ute. 

94.  Claim  or  statement  —  Time      112. 
within  which  to  be  filed. 


Claim    or    statement — Filing 
on  completion  of  building. 
Claim    or     statement — Filing 
on   completion   of     building; 
continued. 

Claim    or     statement — Items 
to  renew  period  for  filing. 
Claim  or  statement  —  Effect 
of    successive    deliveries    on 
time    for   filing. 
Claim   or    statement — Extras 
— Contractors     and     subcon- 
tractors— Amendments    as   to 
time   of   filing. 
Claim    or   statement  —  Form 
and  contents. 

Claim  or   statement  —  Desig- 
nation   of    parties    and    de- 
scription of   building. 
Claim   or  statement  —  Notice 
of  intention  to  claim. 
Claim     or     statement  —  De- 
scription   of    property. 
Claim  or  statement — Portion 
of  land   to  be   described. 
Claim    or    statement  —  De- 
scription of  building — Error. 
Claim    or    statement  —  Aver- 
ment of  ownership. 
Claim    or    statement  —  Pecu- 
liar ownership. 
Claim    or    statement    —    De- 
scription of  services   or  ma- 
terial. 

Claim  or  statement — Suffi- 
cient description  of  material. 
Claim  or  statement — Aver- 
ment of  contract  or  consent 
of  owner. 

Claim  or  statement  —  Terms 
of  contract. 

Claim  or  statement — Name 
of  employer  or  contractor. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  3— Continued. 


IX 


Sec. 

113.  Claim  or  statement — Time  of 
rendering  services. 

114.  Claim     or     statement — Suffi- 
ciency as  to  time. 

115.  Claim    or    statement  —  Aver- 
ment of  amount  due. 

116.  Claim    or     statement — Item- 
ized account. 

117.  Claim     or      statement — Suffi- 
ciency of  detail. 

118.  Claim    or     statement — Signa- 
ture of  claimant. 


Sec. 

119.  Claim  or  statement — Verifica- 
tion. 

120.  Claim    or    statement — Verifi- 
cation,  continued. 

121.  Claim    or    statement — Errors 
and  defects. 

122.  Claim    or    statement — Errors 
and  defects,  continued. 

123.  Claim  or  statement — ^Amend- 
ment of. 

124.  Claim  or   statement — Cancel- 
lation of. 


CHAPTER  4. 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


Sec. 

125.  Generally. 

126.  Amount      covered      by      lien 
statement. 

127.  Amount  limited   by   contract. 

128.  Amount   subject   to    sub-con- 
tractor's claim. 

129.  Amount  and  extent  of  lien  as 
to  time  of  commencement. 

130.  Amount     and     extent — Com- 
mencement of  work. 

131.  Amount     and     extent — Dura- 
tion of  lien. 

132.  Property  reached  by  lien. 

133.  Extent  of  tract  of  land  cov- 
ered by  lien. 

134.  Extent  of  tract  of  land  cov- 
ered by  lien — Continued. 

135.  Lot  of  land  covered  by  lien. 

136.  Land  covered  by  lien — Sever- 
al  houses  on  tract. 

137.  Lien     on     contiguous     lots — 
Ohio   statute. 


Sec. 

138.  Building,  fixtures  and  ap- 
purtenances, covered  by  lien. 

139.  Estate  or  interest  in  land 
covered  by  lien. 

140.  Interest  or  estate  of  con- 
tracting owner  covered  by 
lien. 

141.  Leaseholds  covered  by  lien. 

142.  Community  property  covered 
by   lien — Homestead. 

143.  Lien  on  interest  of  landlord 
or  vendor  for  improvements 
made  by  tenant  or  purchaser. 

144.  Priority  between  mechanics 
and  material  men. 

145.  Priority  between  mechanics 
and  material  men — Assign- 
ment of  contract. 

146.  Generally  no  priority  by  rea- 
son of  time  of  furnishing 
work  or  material. 


TABLE  OF   CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  4— Continued. 


Sec.  Sec. 

147  Equality   of  liens   upon   same      153. 
job — Ohio  statute. 

148.  Pro  rata  payment  of  subcon-      154. 
tractors    out    of    subsequent 
payments  due  head  contrac-      155. 
tor — Ohio  statute.  156. 

148'a.  Priority — Indiana  statute. 

1.  When  lien  attaches. 

2.  Priority    as    against   mort-      157. 
gages. 

3.  Priority   as   against   wife's 
inchoate  interest.  158. 

4.  Continuance    and    loss    of 
priority. 

5.  Removal  of  buildings.  159. 

6.  Priority       of       workmen's 
liens  in  case  of  insolvency.      160. 

149.  Priority  affected  by  convey- 
ances. 161. 

150.  Priority  affected  by  convey- 
ance during  progress  of 
work.  162. 

151.  Priority — Liens  and  incum- 
brances. 163. 

152.  Priority  —  Dower,        curtesy,      164. 
taxes. 


Priority — Debts  of  decedents, 
buildings   and   improvements. 
Priority — Judgments,    attach- 
ments, executions. 
Priority — Mortgages. 
Priority  —  Mortgages      given 
before     making    contract    or 
commencement    of    work. 
Priority  —  Mortgages       given 
after     making     contract     or 
commencement  of  work. 
Priority  —  Mortgages      after 
commencement    of    work     or 
before  material  furnished. 
Priority  —  Mortgages       given 
before  lien  attaches. 
Priority — Mortgages — Future 
advances. 

Priority  —  Mortgages  —  Rec- 
ord  of — Estoppel — After    ac- 
quired property. 
Priority  —  Mortgages   —   Im- 
provements. 

Priority — Vendor's    lien. 
Priority  —   Purchase   money 
mortgages. 


CHAPTER  5. 


ASSIGNMENT  OP  LIEN  AND  INDEMNITY   AGAINST   LIEN. 


Sec. 

165.  Assignability  of  lien. 

166.  Assignability  of  lien — Form 
—  Partnership  —  Death  of 
claimant. 

167.  Effect  of  assignment  of  claim 
or  lien. 

168.  Indemnity  against  liens  by 
contractor  to   owner. 


Sec. 

169.  Bonds  of  contractor. 

170.  Indemnity  bond — Liability. 

171.  Indemnity  bond  —  Estoppel 
of  surety  —  Retention  of 
money. 

172.  Indemnity  bond — Action  on. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


XI 


CHAPTER  6. 


ANNULMENT    OR   AVOIDANCE   OF   LIEN   OR    RIGHT    TO   A    LIEN. 


Sec 
173. 
174. 


Waiver  of  right. 
Express      waiver  —  Recovery 
of  judgment  on  debt — Execu- 
tion. 

175.  Implied  waiver. 

176.  Waiver,  by  taking  note. 

177  Waiver — Maturity   of   note   as 
affecting. 

178.  Waiver  —  Talking      collateral 
security. 

179.  Waiver    by    taking    collateral 
— Cash    deposits — Mortgage. 

180.  Waiver  by  estoppel. 

181.  Waiver   as    affecting   subcon- 
tractors. 

182.  Waiver    by    taking   bond      or 
deposits. 

183.  Waiver     by     deposit — Effect 
and  operation  of. 

184.  Waiver — Liability     on     bond 
made  to   release  lien. 


Sec. 

183.  Waiver  —  Action  on  such 
bond. 

186.  Loss  of  lien  by  attending  cir- 
cumstances. 

187.  Loss  by  transfer  of  title. 

188.  Loss  by  sale,  delay  and  mer- 
ger. 

189.  Loss  or  extinguishment  of 
lien  by  release. 

190.  Loss  or  extinguishment  of 
lien — Discharge  in  bankrupt- 
cy. 

191.  Loss  by  payment  of  debt. 

192.  Loss  by  payment  of  debt — 
Subrogation. 

193.  Failure  to  satisfy  lien — Ohio 
statute. 

194.  Application  of  payments 
made  on  debt. 

195.  Payment  to  subcontractor  af- 
fecting lien  rights. 


CHAPTER  7. 


PROCEEDINGS    TO    ENFORCE    LIENS    AND    PAY    INDEBTEDNESS 
SECURED   THEREBY. 


Sec. 

196.  Generally. 

197.  Kind  of  action. 

198.  Exclusiveness  of  remedy  pro- 
vided by  statute. 

199.  Remedy  where  improvements 
have  been  removed. 

200.  Performance  of  required 
conditions. 

201.  Compelling  and  restraining 
foreclosure   proceedings. 

202.  Owner  may  require  lien 
holder  to  commence  suit — 
Ohio   statute. 


Sec. 
203. 


204. 


205. 
206. 


207. 
208. 


209. 


Owner  may  require  lien 
holder  to  commence  suit — 
Indiana  statute. 
Different  liens  joined  in  the 
same  foreclosure  proceeding. 
Defenses. 

Contractor    to    defend    action 
— Ohio  statute. 
Defenses — Want  of  title. 
Defenses — Waiver  and  estop- 
pel. 

Defense  of  set-off  and  coun- 
ter-claim. 


xu 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  7— Continued. 


Sec. 

210. 

211. 

212. 

213. 

214. 
215. 


216. 


217 


Defenses — Damage  by  reason 
of  default  of  contractor. 
Who  entitled  to  bring  action 
to  foreclose. 

Venue  of  action  or  jurisdic- 
tion of  court. 

Limitation  of  action  to  en- 
force lien. 

When  action  may  be  brought. 
Remedy  by  action  under  the 
Ohio  statute. 

1.  Kinds  of  actions. 

2.  Averments  of  petition. 

3.  Defenses. 

4.  Trial. 

5.  Form  of  petition  by  con- 
tractor against  owner  for 
personal  judgment  and 
foreclosure. 

6.  Form  of  petition  when 
parties  act  under  contract. 

7.  Form  of  petition  for  fore- 
closure of  lien  by  subcon- 
tractor against  owner. 

8.  Form  of  petition  in  action 
for  money  had  and  re- 
ceived by  subcontractor 
where  he  has  not  been 
paid  according  to  Sec. 
3200    (231a). 

Remedies  under  the  Indiana 
statute. 

1.  Who  may  bring  action. 

2.  Where   bought. 

3.  When  to  be  brought. 

4.  Complaint  or  petition. 

5.  Parties. 

6.  Trial. 

7.  Judgment,  etc. 

8.  Distribution    of    proceeds. 
Remedies   under  the  Indiana 
statute   —  Forms     of     com- 
plaints. 


Sec. 

1.  Form  of  petition  or  com- 
plaint by  principal  con- 
tractor. 

2.  Form  of  petition  or  com- 
plaint of  subcontractor. 

3.  Form  of  petition  or  com- 
plaint of  material   man. 

218.  Various  matters  determining 
limitation  of  right  to  sue. 

219.  Various  matters  determining 
limitation  of  right  to  sue; 
continued. 

220.  When  suit  is  regarded  as 
brought. 

221.  Parties  plaintiff. 

222.  Parties  defendant  generally. 

223.  Parties  defendant  —  Neces- 
sary. 

224.  Parties   defendant — Proper. 

225.  Parties  defendant  —  Owners 
of  legal  title. 

226.  Parties  defendant  —  Fraudu- 
lent vendees. 

227.  Parties  defendant  —  Execu- 
tors and  administrators — Ef- 
fect of  failure  to  join  proper 
parties. 

228.  Parties  defendant  —  ]\Iort- 
gagees  and  incumbrancers. 

229.  Parties  defendant  —  Contrac- 
tor. 

230.  Party  by  addition,  substitu- 
tion or  intervention. 

231.  Party — Right  of  intervention. 

232.  Process — Summons. 

233.  Personal  and  constructive 
service. 

234.  Process — Miscellaneous  mat- 
ters. 

235.  Pleading  —  Declaration,  peti- 
tion, form. 

236.  Pleading  — Petition — Allega- 
tions of. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Xlll 


CHAPTER  7— Continued. 


Sec. 

237.  Petition — Prayer  for  relief 
and  description  of  property. 

238.  Petition — Averment  of  own- 
ership and  description  of  im- 
provements. 

239.  Petition — Averment  of  rendi- 
tion of  services  or  furnishing 
of  material. 

240.  Pleading — Averment  of  con- 
sent or  contract  with  the 
owner. 

241.  Petition  stating  contract — 
Completion   of  work. 

242.  Petition  of  subcontractor. 

243.  Petition — Itemized  statement 
— Notice  to  owner. 

244.  Petition — Statement  as  to 
claim — Jointly  where  made — 
Verification. 

245.  Pleading — Answer. 

246.  Pleading — Answer  —  General 
matters. 

247.  Cross  petition. 

248.  Reply. 

249.  Demurrer. 

250.  Pleadings — Amendments. 

251.  Pleadings — Issue. 

252.  Issue — Matters  to  be  proven. 

253.  Matter  to  be  specially  plead- 
ed. 

254.  Variance  between  pleadings 
and  papers  necessary  to  per- 
fect lien. 

255.  Variance  between  averments 
and   proof. 

256.  Evidence — Rules  and  pre- 
sumptions. 

257.  Evidence — Burden   of   proof. 

258.  Evidence  —  Admissibility  — 
General  rule — Ownership  of 
premises. 

259.  Evidence — Kind  and  value  of 
work — Contract. 


(Sec. 

260.  Evidence — Book  accounts — 
Lien  claim — Pleading. 

261.  Evidence — Weight  and  suffi- 
ciency. 

262.  Evidence  —  Completion  of 
work — ^Consent  of  owner — In- 
debtedness. 

263.  Miscellaneous  matters  before 
trial. 

264.  Miscellaneous  matters  before 
trial — Reference. 

265.  Trial. 

266.  Trial— Jury. 

267.  Questions  of  law  and  fact. 

268.  Instructions  to  jury. 

269.  Verdict  and  findings. 

270.  Verdict  and  findings,  contin- 
ued. 

271.  Finding — Decree  or  judg- 
ment. 

272.  Judgment  by  default— Suffi- 
ciency— Description. 

273.  Judgment  —  Conformity  to 
previous   proceedings. 

274.  Order  of  sale — Priorities  and 
distribution. 

275.  Order  of  sale — Interest  on 
claim — Effect  of  order. 

276.  Order  of  sale— Parties  af- 
fected— Judgment  against — 
Setting  same  aside — Collater- 
al attack. 

277.  Matters  relating  to  enforce- 
ment— Writ  of  execution  for 
order  of  sale. 

278.  Sale   in   general. 

279.  Sale — Other    incumbrances. 

280.  Sale — Conduct  and  validity. 

281.  Confirmation  of  sale. 

282.  Removal  of  building. 

283.  Redemption — Description  in 
deed. 


XIV 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  7— Continued. 


Sec. 

284.  Proceedings  and  liability 
where  lien  right  fails  to  pay- 
claim. 

285.  Proceedings  when  defective 
title  defeats  sale  of  property 
on  execution  to  satisfy  lien 
— Ohio   statute. 

286.  Destruction  of  structure — Li- 
ability to  subcontractor. 

287.  Personal  judgment,  when  may 
be  obtained. 

288.  Remedy  of  subcontractor 
when  his  contractor  or  own- 
er refuses  to  pay — Ohio  stat- 
ute. 

289.  Personal  liability  of  the 
owner  under  the  Indiana 
statute. 

290.  Personal  liability  under  Indi- 
ana statute — Notice. 


Sec. 

291.  Personal    liability    under    In- 
diana statute — Actions. 

292.  Personal     judgment — Miscel- 
laneous matters. 

293.  Proceeds  of  sale. 

294.  Proceeds  of  sale — Surplus. 

295.  Appeal   and   error. 

296.  Methods  of  preserving  ques- 
tions for  review — Notice. 

297.  Proceedings  and  record — Ap- 
peal  or   error. 

298.  Error     and     appeal — Miscel- 
laneous. 

299.  Costs. 

300.  Attorney's  fees  under  the  In- 
diana statute. 

301.  Costs — Attorney's    fees — Mis- 
cellaneous. 

302.  Costs — Owner   under  disabil- 
ity. 


i 


TABLE  OF  CASES 


[References  are  to  sections.] 


Abbey   v.   Herzer,    74   Conn.    493 

Abbott    V.    Hood,    60    Mo.    App. 

196 

V.  Nash,  35  Minn.  451        110. 

Abercrombie     v.     Elv.,     60     Mo. 

23 
Abham  v.   Boyd,   5   Daly,    321,   7 
Daly    30  181,   204, 

Account    of    Ermentrout, 
1    Woodw.    Dec.    (Pa.)    158 

13, 
Acker  V.  Massman,  12  Ind.  App. 

696 
Acklin  V.  Waltermier,   10   C.  D. 

629 
Adams   v.    Buhler,    116   Ind.    100, 
131    Ind.    66 

80,    86,    102,    148a,    214, 
V.   Burbank,   103   Cal.   646,   37 

Pac.    640    • 
V.    Cook,    55    Tex.    161 
V.   Russell,    85   111.   284 
V.    Shaffer,    132    Ind.    331 

86,     102,    148a,    241,     298, 
V.   Wells,    64   N.   J.   Eq.    211 

58, 

Adamson      v.      Shaner,      3      Ind. 

App.    448  67,    239, 

Adler  v.    Lumley,    46   App.    Div. 

229 

V.   World's   Pastime   Co..    126 

111.  373  16,   32, 

Advance    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Auch,    25 

Ind.    App.    687 
Aeschlimann     v.      Presbyterian 
Hospital,   165  N.   Y.   296 

121, 

Aetna    Elevator    Co.    v.    Deeves, 

56  Misc.   Rep.  565  13. 

Aetna  Life   Ins.  Co.   v.   Fich,   84 

Ind.    301, 
Ahern  v.  Evans,   66  111.   125 
Ah   Louis  V.   Harwood,    140   Cal. 
500  43,    106,    107, 

Ah  Theie  v.  Quan,  3   Cal.   216 
Aiken    v.    Kennedy,    1    White   & 

W.   Civ.  Cas.   Ct.  App.   1321 
Aimee  Realty  Co.  v.  Haller,  128 
Mo.    App.    66  85,    201, 

Ainslie   v.    Kohn,    16    Or.    363 

6,  74,  99,   115,   116, 
Ainsworth  v.  Atkinson,   14   Ind. 

538 
Akers    v.    Kirk,    91    Ga.    590 
Alabama  Lumber  Co.   v.   Smith, 
(Ala.)    35    So.    693 
v.   Tisdale,   139   Ala.   250 

115.    121, 
Alabama   State   Fair,    &c.   Assn. 
V.   Alabama    Gas   Fixture,   &c. 
P.  Co.,  131  Ala.  256 

119.    204,    141,    183, 
Albany  v.  Lynch,   119  Ga.  491 


68 


116 
189 


10 

220 


15 
180 


44 


288 

195 
273 
143 

82 
260 

66 

289 


34 
236 


185 
36 

216 

58 

143 

185 

234 
204 
120 

207 

255 

245 
195 


115 
10 


Alberti  v.  Moore,   (Okla.)    93  P. 

543  123,   272,   287 

Albrecht  v.  Foster  Lumber  Co., 
126  Ind.  318 

56,    76,    82,    121,    189,   216,   217 
Albright   v.   Smith,    2   S.   D.    577, 

3   S.  D.  631  68,  97,   98,      99 

Alderman       v.       Hartford,       &c. 

Transp.     Co.,     66     Conn.     47  55 

Aldine      Mfg.      Co.      v.      Butler, 

(Pa.)     9    Kulp,    33  123 

Alexander  v.   Church,   53   Conn. 

561  247 

v.  Hemrich,  4  Wash.  St.  727,   154 

v.    Perkins.   71   Mo.   App.    286      31 

Alexandria     Bldg.     Co.     v.     Mc- 

Hugh,    12    Ind.    App.    282  94 

Allen  V.  Carman,  1  E.  D.  Smith 

(N.   y.)    692  65,      50 

V.    Elwert,    29    Or.    428      108,   112 

114,    121,    122,    261,    295 

V.  Fitzpatrick,  9  Phila.  (Pa.) 

142  85 

V.    Frumet    Mining,    &c.    Co., 

73   Mo.   688  122,   166 

V.   Oxnard,    152    Pa.    621 

110,    140,   164 
V.    Rowe,    19   Or.    188  42,   106 

V.    Sales,    56    Mo.    28 

130.    187,   276 
V.    Schweigert,    113    Ga.    69 

67,   68,   196 
V.   TVillis.   4   La.   Ann.    97  66 

Alley  V.   Lanier,  41   Tenn.   540  26 

Allfree    Manuf'g    Co.    v.    Henry, 

96  Wis.  327  123,    143,   162 

All  is     Co.    V.   Meadow      Springs 
Distilling   Co.,    67   Wis.    16 

179,   299,   204 
V.    Madison    Electric    Light, 

&c.   Co.,    9    S.    D.    459  178 

Allison    V.    Keeley,    23    Pa.    Co. 

Ct.    R.    408  100.   116 

Allman  v.  Corban,  63  Tenn.  74  47 
Almstead  v.  Beale,  19  Pick.  528  49 
Althause    v.    Warren.     2    E.    D. 

Smith,     (N.    Y.)     657  170,   271 

Althen   v.    Tarbox,    48    Minn.    18, 

27.    114,    208,    209,   265 
Altieri  v.  Lyon,  59  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.   110  187,   284, 

Mvey  V.  Reed,  115  Ind.  148  29,  45 
Alvord  V.  Hendrie,  2  Mont.  115  11 
Aman  v.   Brady,  2  W.  N.  C.  Pa. 

262  246 

Ambrose  v.  Woodmansee,  27  O. 

S.    147  81,   131 

American  Banking  &  Trust  Co. 

V.    Lynch.    10    S.    D.    410  280 

American    Brick    &    Tile    Co.    v. 
Drinkhouse,    58   N.   J.   L.   462 

36,    123,    267,   295 


(XV) 


XVI 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

American  Car,  &c.  Co.  v.  Alex- 
andria Water  Co.,  215  Pa. 
520  74,   111,   108,   116 

American  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Prin- 
gle,   2   S.   &   R.    (Pa.)    138  164 

American  Mortg.  Co.  v.  Butler, 
36    Misc.     Rep.     253  121 

V.    Merrick    Const.    Co.,    120 

App.    Div.    150  149 

American  Savings,  &c.  Ass'n. 
V.    Campbell,    8    S.   D.    170  277 

Amidon  v.  Benjamin,  126  Mass. 
276  107,   258 

Amith  V.  Pierce,  45  App.  Div. 
628  187 

Anderson  v.  Berg,  174  Mass. 
404  26,      35 

V.    Bingham,    1    Colo.      App. 

0  92  105 

V.  Carlson,  99  111.  App.  514  205 
V.    Gregg,    6    C.    D.    629  44 

V.  Huff,  49  N.  J.  Eq.  349  66,  174 
V.  Knudsen,  33  Minn.  172  110 
V.    Seamans,    49    Ark.    479 

1,   10,      80 
V.   Volmer,    83   Mo.    403       74,   257 
Anderson  Lumber  Co.  v.  Fried- 
lander,    54    N.    J.    L.    375  68 
Andis    v.    Davis,     63    Ind.     17 

82,    181,   216 
Andrews    v.    Burdick,    62    Iowa, 
714  67,      68 

V.    Heating,    5  Ohio  Dec.  292,   147 
v.    Kentucky    Citizens'      &c. 
Loan    Ass'n.,    23    Ky.    L. 

9  4. 1  S  1 7  S 

V.    Washburn,    11    Miss.    109 

7,   212 
Andrews,  &c.  Iron  Co.  v.  Smead 
Heating    &c.    Co.,    7    Ohio    N. 
P.    439  58,145,   263 

Andrews  &  Johnson   Co.  v.  At- 

wood,     167     111.     249  58 

Andry    v.    Guvol,    13    La.    8  293 

Angler  v.  Bay  State  Distilling 
Co.,   178  Mass.   163 

18,    21,   174,   204 

Anglo-American  Savings  &c. 
Ass'n.  V.  Campbell,  13  App. 
D.     C.     581  162,   184,   275 

Anisansel  v.  Coggeshall,  83 
App.    Div.    491  245 

Anly  V.  Holy  Trinity  Church, 
2    Man.    R.    248  49,   167 

Anshutz  V.  McClelland,  5 
Watts,    (Pa.)    487  26,   188,   234 

Anslev  v.  Pasahro,   22   Neb.   062 

163,   164 

Ansonia  Brass  &  Copper  Co.  v. 
Gerlach,   8   Misc.   256  49 

Antlers  Park  Regent  Min.  Co. 
V.    Cunningham,    29    Colo.    284      36 

Apperson  v.  Farrell,  56  Ark. 
640  158 

Arata  v.  Tellurium  Gold  &  Sil- 
ver   Min.    Co.,    65    Cal.    340 

107,    119,   272 

Archibold  v.  Hubby,  18  S.  C. 
R.    116  8 

Arkansas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Kay,   30    Ark.    682  244 

Arkansas  River  Land  &c.  Co. 
V.    Flinn,    3    Colo.    App.    381       239 


to  sections.'\ 

Armijo    v.    Mountain      Electric 
Co.,    (N.    M.)    67    P.    726 

139,   186,   299 
Armsby    v.    People,    20    111.    155     282 
Armstrong    v.     Chisholm,       100 
App.     Div.     440  102,   113 

V.  Hallowell,   35  Pa.   485 

80,   123 
V.   'Ware.   1   Phila.   213 

12,   214,   267 
Arnold    v.    Budlong,    11    R.    I. 

561  47 

V.     Campbell,     (Tex.)     64     S. 

W.    532  10 

Arrington     v.     T\'ittenberg,     12 

Nev.   99  120,   277 

Arrison  v.  Company,  2  N.  Dak. 

557  10 

Ashdown   v.  Woods,  31  Mo.  465   177 
Asheville    Woodworking    Co    v. 

Southwick,    119    N.    C.    611  141 

Associates    v.    Davison,     29    N. 

J.    Law    415  27,   116,   112 

Aste    V.    Wilson,    14   Colo.    App. 

323  8,   49,      57 

Atascosa   County   v.    Angus,    83 

Tex.    202  10 

Atkins    V.    Little,    17    Minn.   342     11 

18,  21,  26,  32,  112,  117,  149,  217,  270 

V.    Volmer,    21    Fed.    697  159 

Atkinson     v.     Shoemaker,       151 

Pa.     153  85 

V.    Woodmansee,    (Kan.)     74 

P.    640  123 

Atlantic   Coast   Brewing   Co.   v. 

Donnelly,    59   N.   J.   L.    48      48,      57 
Atlantic    Trust    Co.    v.    Carbon- 
dale    Coal    Co.,    99    Iowa    234      178 
Atwood    V.    Williams,      40      Me. 

409  4 

Avery   v.    Butler,    30    Or.    287  97 

V.    Clark,    87    Cal.    619        48,   164 

Aubin   V.    Darling,    26    R.    I.    469      75 

Aurand   v.    Martin,    188    111.    117, 

87    111.    App.    337  85 

Aurora    Nat.    Bank    v.      Black, 

129    Ind.    595  148a 

Ausbeck  v.  Schardien,   (Ky.)   45 

S.    "W.    507  10,      74 

Austin    V.    Wohler,    5    111.    App. 

300  34,   150,   255 

Avres  V.   Revere,   25   N.  J.  Law 
474  41,   229 


Babb    V.    Reed,    5    Rawle    (Pa.) 

151  9, 

Babbitt   v.   Condon,   27   N.   J.   L. 

154  41, 

Badenoch     v.    Hoffman,     50    111. 

App.    512  100, 

Badger  Lumber   Co.   v.    Ballen- 

tine,   54  Mo.  App.   172 

V.    Holmes,    44    Neb.    244 

134,    136,   138, 
V.   Malone,    (Kan.)    54   P.   692 
V.  Marion  Water  etc.  Co.,  48 
Kan.    182.    743  10,   11, 

V.    Maves,    3    Neb.    822 
V.  Muehlebach,  109  Mo.  App. 
646  179,    239,    245, 

V.   Stepp,    157    Mo.    366        117, 


144 
225 
254 

228 


132 


256 
292 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


XVU 


[References  are  to  sections.'] 


Bailey  v.  Adams,  14  Wend.    (N. 
Y.)    201  174 

V.    Hull,    11    Wis.    289 

126,    177,   277 
V.   Johnson,    1    Daly,    (N.    Y.) 

61  250 

V.   Mason,   4   Minn.   546  6 

Bailey  Const.   Co.  v.  Purcell,   88 

Va.    300  197 

Baird  v.  Otto,  12  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R. 
510  186 

V.   Peall,    92   Cal.   235  34 

Baker  v.  Fessenden,  71  Me.  292 

12     14     122     204 
V.   Pag-aud,    26   La.   Ann.    220 

54,   227 
V.   Robbins,   119  N.   C.   289  162 

V.    Stone,    (Tenn.)    58    S.    W. 

761  31,   199 

V.  TValdron,  92  Me.  17  13,   132 

V.  Winter,  15  Md.  1 

111,    114,    117,    122,   124 
Balch  V.    Chaffee,   73    Conn.    318 

14,     15 
Balding-er    v.     Levine,     83    App. 

Div.   130  229 

Baldwin  v.  Jeffries,  (Pa.)  2  Del. 
Co.   R.   221  188 

V.   Merrick,   1  Mo.   App.   281       14 
V.    Spear,    (Vt.)    64   A.   235 

100,   113,    115-117 
Ball  V.  Clark,   52   N.  Y.   S.   443  67 

Ballman   v.   Heron,    169   Pa.    510      57 
Ballou  V.  Black,  17  Neb.  389,  21 

Neb.    131  53,    68,    98,   136 

Baltimore    v.    Barlange,    23    La. 

Ann.    365  163 

Baltimore    etc.      Brick      Co.    v. 

Amos,    95    Md.    571  141 

Baltis    V.    Friend,    90    Mo.    App. 

408  74,   121,    250 

Bambrick  v.  King-,   59  Mo.  App. 
284  77 

V.  Webster  Groves  Presby- 
terian Church  Ass'n.,  53 
Mo.  App.  225  76 

Ban   V.   Columbia  Southern  Ry. 

Co.,    117    Fed.    21  12 

Bangs   V.    Berg,    82    Iowa,   350 

114,    241 
Banham     v.     Roberts,     78     Hun 

246  68 

Bank  V.   Redman,   57   Me.    405        123 
Bankard    v.     Shaw,     16     Montg. 

Co.   Law   Rep'r,   137  40 

Bank    of    Charlestown    v.    Cur- 
tiss,    18    Conn.    342 

103,     117,     122,   134 
Bankers'      Building      &        Loan 
Ass'n.   V.   Williams,    (Neb.)    96 
N.   W.    655  261,    267 

Bank    of    Iron    River   v.    School 

Directors,    91    Wis.    596  167 

Bank  of  Pennsylvania  v.  Gries, 

35  Pa.   423  16 

Bank    of      Pittsburg's      Appeal, 

29    Pa.    330  14 

Banks      v.    Moshier,    73      Conn. 
448  253 


Barbae   v.   Morris,    221   111.   382     205 
Barber  v.  Reynolds,  33  Cal.  497, 
44    Cal.    519,    533 

33,    121,    130,   204 
v.   Roth,    11    York  Leg-.    Rec. 
11  12,   267 

Barbig    v.    Kick,    25    Civ.    Proc. 

R.    62  174 

Barclay  v.  Wainwright,   86   Pa. 

191  27 

Barclay's   Appeal,    13    Pa.    495        101 
Bardwell  v.  Anderson,  13  Mont. 
87  117,    235,    254,   265 

V.  Mann.   46  Minn.   285  6 

Barker    v.    Berry,    4    Mo.    App. 
585  49 

V.  Buell,   35  Ind.   297  58 

V.   Doherty,   97    Cal.    10  96 

V.    Maxwell,    8    Watts,    (Pa.) 

478  221 

Barlow    v.     Gaffney,     76     Conn. 

107  58,      68 

Barnacle  v.  Henderson,  42  Neb. 

169  110,     121,   176 

Barnard    v.    Lantry,     116    App. 

Div.    535  27 

Barnard  etc.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Gallo- 
way,   5    S.    D.    205  175 
Barnes'   Appeal,   46   Pa.    350  294 
Barnes   v.    Stacy,    73    Wis.    1  239 
V.   Thompson,   32   Tenn.   313 

33,   234 
V.    White,    53    Tex.    628  33 

V.    Wright,    2    Whart.     (Pa.) 

193  229 

Barnett  v.  Clooney,  68  Mo.  App. 

146,     67     Mo.    App.     664  123 

v.   Griffith,   27   N.  J.   Eq.   201      160 

v.   Murray,   62  Mo.  App.   500      104 

V.  Stevens,  16  Ind.  App.  420 

45,   186 
Barney  v.   Giles,   120  111.    154  49 

Barnhart   v.    Edwards,    111    Cal. 

428  296 

Barrall      v.    Ruberry,    9      Kulp 

(Pa.)    285  86 

Barrett    v.     Millikan,     156     Ind. 

510  45 

Barrows  v.   Baughman,   9   Mich. 
213  103,      179 

V.   Knight,   55   Cal.   155  97 

Barstow    V.    McLachlan,    99    111. 

641  187,    189 

Bartlett   v.   Bilg-er,   92   lov/a   732 

85.    161,   281 
V.    Clough,    94    Wis.    196 

263,    266 
V.    King-an,   19   Pa.    341  98 

V.    Mahlum,    88   lov/a,    329  67 

Bartley    v.    Smith,    43    N.    J.    L. 

321  250 

Barton  v.  Grand  Lodge,  71  Ark. 
35  68 

V.    Herman,    3    Daly,    (N.    Y.) 

320  131 

V.  Rose,   (Ore.)   85  Pac.  1009      112 
Ba.sham    v.    Toors,    51    Ark.    309 

75,   126 
Bashor   v.   Nordyke   &   Marmon 
Co.,     25     Kan.     222  177 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


IReferences  are  to  sections.'\ 


Bassett   v.   Bertorelli,    92    Tenn. 
548  53,    75,      76 

V.  Brewer,  74  Tex.  554       86,   115 
V.    Carleton,    32    Me.    553  71 

V.    Menage,    52    Minn.    121 

105,  164,  228 
V.  Mills.  89  Tex.  162  58 
V.   Swart.s.   17   R.   I.   215      157,   169 

Basslior    V.    Baltimore    &   O.    R. 
Co.,    65    Md.    99  18 

V.    Kilbourn,    3      MacArthur, 

(D.     C.)     273  105 

Bassick  Min.   Co.  v.  Schoolfleld, 

10  Colo.   46  274 

Bastien    v.     Barras,     10     N.     D. 

29  158 

Bastrup  v.  Prendergast,  179  111. 

553  85,   122,    142 

Batchelder    v.    Hutchinson,    161 
Mass.    462        32,    118.    157,   158,   240 
V.    Rand,    117    Mass.    176 

135,   157 
Bates   V.    Harte,    124    Ala.    427  13 

V.    Salt    Springs    Nat.    Bank, 

157    N.    Y.    322  66 

V.  Santa  Barbara  County,  90 

Cal.  543  284,   301 

V.     Trustees,     7     Misc.     Rep. 

609  49,    65,   200 

Bates    Mach.     Co.     v.     Trenton, 
etc.   R.   Co.,   70   N.  J.   L.   684 

48,    57,   150 
Batesville    Institute      v.    Kauf- 
man, 85  U.  S.  151  167,   221 
Battle     Ci-eek    Lumber    Co.    v. 

Poland,  150  Mich.  690  261 

Bauer  v.  Long-,  147  Mich.  351 

31,  140 
Baum  V.  Covert,  62  Miss.  113  138 
Baumbach      Co.    v.    Laube,      99 

Wis.    171  255 

Baumgarten    v.    Mauer,     (Tex.) 

60     S.    TV^     451  144,    195 

Baumhoff   v.    St.   Louis   &  K.   R. 

Co.,   171  Mo.   120  115.   175.   183 

Baxter  v.  Hutchings,  49  111.  116 

131,   240 
V.  Sisters  of  Charitv,   15  La. 

Ann.  686  195 

Baxter   Lumber   Co.    v.   Nickell, 

(Tex.)    60   S.  W.   450  94,   150 

Bayard   v.   McGraw.    1   111.    App. 

134  177,    179.    194,    274 

Bayer  v.    Reeside,    14    Pa.    167        113 
Baylies  v.    Sinex,    21    Ind.    45 

45,   132 
Bayne  v.  Gaylord,  3  Watts,   301,   210 
Bayonne      Building     Ass'n.      v. 
Williams,    57    N.    J.    Eq.    503 

144,   146 

V.  Williams,  59  N.  J.  Eq.  617      74 

Beach  v.  Huntsman,  (Ind.  App.) 

85    N.    E.    523  45,   216 

V.    Stamper,    44   Ore.    4  53 

V.  Wakefield,   107   Iowa  567 

175,   251 
Beals  V.   Cong.  B'Nai  Jeshurun, 
1    E.    D.    Smith,     (N.    Y.)     654 

106,  107,   123 
Beam    v.    Methodist      Episcopal 

Church.  3  Clark  (Pa.)  343  132 
Bearden   v.    Miller,    54   Mo.   App. 

199  273 

Beardsley  v.  Brown,  71  111.  App. 

199  144,  170 


Bear  Lake  Waterworks,  etc. 
Co.  V.  Garland,  17  S.  Ct.  7, 
164    U.    S.    1  27,   213 


34 
96 
14 


27 


19 
224 


31 

76 


44 

58 


Beasley  v.   Webster,    64   111.   458 
Beatty   v.    Mills,    113    Cal.    312 

V.   Parker,   141   Mass.    523 

Beattys  v.  Searles,  74  App.  Div. 

244  116, 

Beck     V.    Catholic     University, 

32     Misc.     Rep.     567,     62    App. 

Div.   599,   172   N.   Y.    387 

11,    26, 
Beck  Lumber  Co.  v.  Halsey,  41 

111.  App.  349  119 

Beckel  v.  Pettigrew,  6  Ohio  St. 
251  44, 

Becker    v.    Price,    I    Lack.    Leg. 

Rec.    (Pa.)    483 
Becker  Lumber  Co.  v.   Stevens, 

84    Mo.   App.    558 
Beckhard  v.  Rudolph.  (N.  J.)  59 
A.     253,     63     Atl.     705  64, 

Beck    Provision    Co.,    In    re.    11 

O.    F.    D.    449 
Bedford   Stone   Co.   v.   Board  of 

Publication,    91    Tenn.    200 
Bedsole    v.    Peters,    79    Ala.    133 

105,    269,   284 
Beecher  v.  Schuback,   158  N.  Y. 
687,   4   Misc.    (N.   Y.)    54 

65.   255,  257 
Beegle      v.    McGarrv,    1      Lack. 

Leg.  N.    (Pa.)    131  264 

Beehler  v.  Ijams,  72  Md.  193 

143,  150 
Beers  v.    Knapp,   Fed.   Cas.    No. 

1,232  14,   177 

Beetem   v.   Treibler,   16    Pa.   Co. 

Ct.  R.  605  99 

Beha    v.    Ottenberg,    6    Mackey, 

(D.    C.)    348  126 

Behrer       v.        City        Suburban 

Homes  Co..   114  App.  Div.   450   191 
Beitzel   v.    Stair's  Adm'r,    2   Pa. 

Dist.   R.   337  117 

Belanger   v.    Hersey,    90    111.    70 

240,   255 
Belding    v.    Cushing,    67    Mass. 

576  10 

Bell   v.   Bosche,    41   Neb.    853 

104,   211 
v.   Burke,    89   Ga.    772  154 

V.    Cooper,    26    Miss.    650 

26,   129 
V.    Groves,    20    Wash.    602  163 

V.   Hiner.   16  Ind.   App.   184      148a 
V.    Mecum,     (N.    J.)     68    Atl. 
149  19, 

V.   New  York,   105   N.  Y.    139 
V.  Paul,   35  Neb.   240 
V.   Teague.  85   Ala.    211 
V.  Vanderbilt,  67  How.  Prac. 
332 
Belmont  Farm  v.   Dobbs  Hard- 
ware   Co.,    124    Ga.    827 
Belvin    v.    Raleigh    Paper      Co., 

123   N.   C.    138 
Bement  v.   Trenton  Locomotive 
Co.,    31    N.   J.    Law   246,    32    N. 
J.    L.    513  220 

Bender    v.    Assignee,    19    W.    L. 
Bull.     (Ohio)     165  M 

V.    Stettinius,    10    Ohio    Dec. 

186  44.   57.   76,   81 

120,    147,    176,    252,   26? 


267 
10 

170 
90 

86 

176 

36 


TABLE  OF  CASES, 


[References  are  to  sections.'} 


Benedict  v.  Hood,   134  Pa.   289 
Benjamin    v.    "Wilson,    34    Minn. 
517  11,   26, 

Benner  v.  Schmidt,  44  111.  App. 
304  235 

Benneson  v.  Thayer,  23  111.  374 
Bennett   v.    Davis,    113    Cal.    337 
V.    Shackford,    93    Mass.   444 
V.    Wilming-ton       Star      Min. 
Co.,    119    111.    9 
Benore    v.    Leonard,     6       Lack. 
Leg-.   N.    (Pa.)    198 

109,    111,    123, 
Benson  v.   Mole,   9   Phila.    (Pa.) 

66 
Bent    V.    Barnett,    95    Ky.    499 
Bentley  v.   Adams,   92   Wis.   386 

48, 
V.    Davidson,    74    Wis.    420 
Benton    v.    Wickwire,    54    N.    Y. 

226 
Berg-er  v.   Long-,  1  Walk.    (Pa.) 
143 
V.   Turnblad,    (Minn.)    107  N. 
W.  543 
Berger   Mfg.    Co.    v.    Zabriskie, 
75    N.    Y.    S.    1038  23, 

Bergin   v.   Braun,   15    Ohio  Dec. 
383  38, 

Bergsma    v.    DeTvey,    46      Minn. 
357  135,   252, 

Berkowskv    v.     Sable,     43       111. 

App.    410 
Bernard    v.    Adjoran,    43    Misc. 

Rep.    273 
Berndt    v.    Armknecht,    50    111. 
App.    467  6,    100, 

Bernhardt   v.  Brown,  118   N.   C. 

700 
Bernheisel    v.    Smothers,    41   W. 

N.    C.    (Pa.)    40 
Bernsdorf  v.   Hardway,    7  Ohio 
Cir.    Ct.    R.    378  81,   97, 

Berry  v.   Gavin,   88   Hun   1 

V.   McAdams,    93   Tex.    431  76, 
V.    Turner,    45    'Wis.    105 
Bertheolet    v.    Parker,    43    Wis. 

551 
Betcher  Co.  v.   Cleveland,   13  S. 

Dak.    352 
Bethell  v.  Chicago  Lumber  Co., 
39    Kan.    230  31, 

Bevan    v.    Thackara,     143       Pa. 
182  31, 

Bianchi  v.   Hughes.    124   Cal.   24 
Bickel  v.  Gray,  81  Mo.  App.  653 

85, 
V.   James,    7   Watts    (Pa.)    9 
Bierschenk    v.    King,    38      App. 
Div.    (N.    Y.)    360 
V.    Stokes,    18    N.    Y.     Supp. 
854 
Big    Blackfoot    Milling    Co.    v. 
Blue  Bird  Min.  Co.,   19   Mont 


454 

Bigelo-w 

403 


V.    Doying,     59 


237, 
Hun, 


Biggs   V.    Clapp,    74    111.    335 

67, 

Big    Horn    Lumber    Co.    v.    Da- 
vis,   (Wyo.)    84    Pac.    900,    85 

,    Pac.    1048  94, 

Billings     V.     Martin,     (Me.)     10 
Atl.    445 


57 

100 

241 
191 

47 
21 

228 

124 

189 
30 

96 

268 

220 

186 

17 

36 

147 

253 

58 

27 

136 

197 

249 

176 

221 

140 

97 

112 

179 

100 

101 
20 

235 

175 

226 
198 

238 
131 
181 

246 
94 


Billings  Co.  v.  Brand,  187  Mass. 

417  95,   150,   179 

Billmeyer  v.  Brubaker  (1),  (2), 
(3),    17    York    (Pa.)    113 

114,    115,    111,   120 
Birch  V.  Magic  Transit  Co.,  139 

Cal.     496  42 

Birchell    v.    Neaster,    36      Ohio 

St      331  32 

Bird    V.    Lobdell,    28    La.    Ann. 

305  41 

V.  Rector,   etc.,  154  Ind.  138    209 
V.    St.    John's    Church,       154 

Ind.   138  216,   299,   300 

V.    Shirk,    2    Leg.    Chron.    Pa. 

158  131 

Birmingham  v.  Glen  Coe,  78  N. 

Y.    30  3 

Birmingham  Building  &  Loan 
Ass'n.  V.  Mav  &c.  Hardware 
Co.,     99     Ala.     276  5,   162 

Bishop   V.    Boyle,    9   Ind.   169 

11,   82,   153 
V.  Honey.  34  Tex.  245  32.   186 

Bissell    V.    Lewis,    56    Iowa    231 

104,    107.   157,   158,    160,   179 
Bithell   V.   Diven,   18   Pa.   Super. 

Ct.    R.    178  57 

Bitner,    In    re.,    176    Pa.    90  140 

Bitter  v.  Mouat  Lumber  &   In- 
vestment   Co.,     (Colo.)     51    P. 
519        7,   34,   101,   106,   118,   231,   275 
Bixbv    V.    Whitcomb,    69    N.    H. 

646  74 

Blackman  v.  Marsicano,  61  Cal. 

638  34 

Blackmar    v.    Sharp,    23     R.    I. 

412  151,    160,   212 

Black's   Appeal,    2    Watts    &    S. 

(Pa.)     179  101 

Blaisdell   v.  Dean,   9   Pa.   Super. 

Ct.    639  57 

Blake    v.    Pitcher,    46    Md.    453 

30,    47,    177 
Blakeley    v.    Moshier,    94    Mich. 

299  191 

Blakeney    v.    Nally,    (Tex.)    101 

S.    W.    875  1 

Blakeslee    v.     Fisher,     66    Hun 

261  65,   128 

Blakey   v.   Blakey,    27   Mo.   39  16 

Blanchard    v.    Elly,    179      Mass. 

586  77 

V.     Fried,    162    111.    462      114,   136 

Blanshard  v.  Schwartz,  7  Okla. 

100  155 

Blatchford    v.      Blanchard,    160 

111.    115  185 

Blattner  v.   Wadleigh,    48   Kan. 

290  106 

Blauvelt   v.   Fuller,    66   N.   J.   L. 

46  66 

V.  Woodworth,  31  N.  Y.  285      187 

Blethen   v.    Blake,    44    Cal.    117     253 

Blevins    v.     Cameron,     2    Posey 

Unrep.    Cas.     (Tex.)     461  31 

Blight   V.   Ray,    23   Ont.   R.    415        27 
Blinn    Lumber    Co.    v.    Walker, 

129   Cal.   62  79 

Bliss  v.  Patten,   5  R.   I.  376 

35,   37,    106 
Blitz    V.    Fields,    115    Mich.    675, 
118    Mich.    85  191,   195 


XX 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  sections.'\ 


13 
31 


29 


213 
295 


45 


66 
94 
10 
10 

10 

168 

49 


Blocher  v.  Worthington,  10  Md. 

1  131 

Block    V.    Murray,     (Mont.)     31 

Pac.   550 

V.    Pearson,    (Okla.)    91   Pac. 

714  11, 

Bloomer   v.    Nolan,    36    Neb.    51 

26, 
Bloomington       Hotel       Co.       v. 

Garthwait,    227    111.    613 
Blunt    V.    Sheppard,    1   Mo.   219 
Blyth  V.  Robinson,  104  Cat.  239 

169,   171 
V.   Torre,    (Cal.)    38   Pac.    639 

33,  171 
Blythe  v.  Poultney,  31  Cal.   233 

65,  127 
Boals  V.  Intrup,  40  111.  App.  62  244 
Board  v.   O'Connor,   86   Ind.   531     45 

V.   Norrington.   82   Ind.   190 
Board    of    Education    v.    Blake, 
(Cal.)    38    Pac.    536 
V.    Duparquet,    50    N.    J.    Eq. 

234 
V.    Gelino,    (Kan.)    58   P.    277 
V.    Greenebaum,    39    111.    609 
V.    Neidenberger,    78    111.    58 
V.    Salt    Lake   Pressed   Brick 
Co..    13    Utah    211 
Boas  V.  Maloney,   138   Cal.    105 
Boden    v.    Moher,    95    Wis.    65 
Bodley  v.   Thackara,  143  Pa.   171   37 
Bodley    v.    Denmead,    1    W.    Va. 

249  135.   777 

Boggs    V.    McEwen,     (Neb.)     96 

N.  W.  606  155 

Bogue    V.    Guthe,    54    Neb.    236     239 
Bohem  v.   Seabury,   141  Pa.   594 

49,   166 

V.    Seel,    185    Pa.    St.    382  123 

Bohn   V.   McCarthy,    29    Minn.  23   172 

Bohn    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Keenan,    15 

S.    Dak.    377  115,   205 

V.    Kountze,    30    Neb.    725,  726   163 

Bohn  Sash  &  Door  Co.  v.  Case, 

42    Neb.    281  85,      94 

Boland    V.    Webster,     126      Mo. 

App.    591  257,   261 

Bolen  Coal  Co.  v.  Ryan,  48  Mo. 

App.    512  85 

Boll  V.  Boll,  11  York  Leg.   Rec. 

(Pa.)    20  154 

Bolster    V.    Stocks.     13      Wash. 

460  107,   109,   111,    122 

Bolter     V.     Koslowski,     112     111. 

ApD.    13,     211    111.     79 
Bolton    V.    Hey,    148    Pa.    156 
Bolton's    Appeal,    3   Grant,   Cas. 
(Pa.)     204  94, 

Bonbeck    v.    Devorss,    19      Mo. 

App.    38  229,   292 

Bond   V.    Carroll.    71   Wis.    347        201 
Bond    Lumber    Co.    v.    Masland, 

(Fla.)    34    So.    254  151,   161 

Bonheim  v.  Meany,   43  111.  App 

532 
Bonnell    v. 

283 
Bonney    v. 
App.    321 

Bon  sail    v.    Taylor,    5    Iowa    546   218 
Boone    v.    Chatfield,    118    N.    C. 
916  27 


34 


95 


52a,   200 
Lewis,    3    111.    App. 


Ketcham,     51       111. 


297 
292 


Booth    V.    Barron,    29   App.   Div. 

66  198 

V.    Pendola,    88    Cal.    36 

117,   239,   244,   269 
Boots    V.    Steinberg,    100    Mich., 

134  49,   200 

Bopp    V.    Wittich,    88    Mo.    App. 

129  191 

Borden   v.   Mercer,    163  Mass.   7 

27,   115,   126 
Borden  v.  Morris,  2  Miles   (Pa.) 

109  201 

Boscow   V.   Patton,    136   Cal.   90    121 
Bosley    v.    Pease,    (Tex.)    22    S. 

T\^    516  32,      79 

Bossert    v.    Happel,     40       Misc. 

569,    89    App.    Div.    7  107,   116 

Boston   V.   Chesapeake   &  O.    R. 

Co.,    76    Va.    180  80,      86 

Boston  Furnace  Co.  v.  Dimock, 

158     Mass.     552  14 

Boteler    v.    Espen.    99    Pa.    313        27 
Botsford  V.  New  Haven  etc.  R. 

Co.,    41    Conn.    454  .  161 

Botto  V.  Ringwald,   60  111.  App. 

415  76 

Bottomlv    V.    Grace    Church,     2 

Cal.     90  8 

Bouchard    v.    Guisti,    22    R.    I. 

591  108 

Boucher    v.    Powers,    29    Mont. 

342  209,   210 

Boude    V.    Methodist    Episcopal 

Church,    47    Iowa    705  238 

Bouner    v.    Minnear,    13    Mont. 

269  2 

Bourget  V.  Donaldson,  83  Mich. 

478  66 

Bourhryyr  v.  Bubinger,   30  Ind. 

296  216 

Bourgette  v.  Hubinger,  30  Ind. 

296  249 

Bournonvllle  v.  Goodall,  10  Pa. 

133  90 

Boutner    v.    Kent,    23    Ark.    389 

43,      47 

Bouton   V.   McDonough    County, 

84,   111.  384  10,   276 

Bovev  &c.  Lumber  Co.  v.  Tuck- 
er,' 48    Minn.    223  283 
Bowen   v.   Aubrey,   22   Cal.   566       57 
v.    Phinney,    162    Mass.    593 

4,    57,    68,   128 
Bowes    v.    New   York   Christian 

Home,    64    How.    Prac.    413  234 

Bowling     V.     Garrett,     49     Kan. 

504  188 

Bowman      v.      McLaughlin,      45 

Miss.     461  197,   250,   271 

Bowman    Lumber    Co.    v.    New- 
ton,  72   Iowa   90  117 
Bovd    V.    Bassett,    61    Hun    624 

122,  296 
V.  Blake,  42  Minn.  1  143,  257 
v.    Mole,    9    Phila.    (Pa.)    118 

85.   126 

Bovlan     v.     Cameron,     126     111. 

App.    432  213 

Bovle   v.   Gould.   164   Mass.   144  212 

V.  Bobbins,  71  N.  C.  130  90 
Bovnton   v.   Pierce,    49   111.   App. 

497  283 

V.  Westbrook,  74  Ga.  68  ?65 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


XXI 


IReferences  are  to  sections. '\ 


Boynton  Furnace  Co.  v.  Gilbert, 

87    Iowa    15 
Brabazon     v.     Allen,     41     Conn. 

361 
Brackney       v.       Turrentine,    14 

Ark.    416 
Bradbury     v.     Butler,     1     Colo. 

App.   430 
V.    Idaho    etc.    Co.,    2    Idaho 
221 
Bradford   v.   Anderson,   60   Neb. 

V.    Dorsey,     63     Cal.     122 
V.    Higgins,    31    Nebr.    192 
V.  Neill  &c.   Co.,   76   111.  App. 

488 
V.   Peterson,  30  Neb.  96 
Bradish    v.    James,    83    Mo.    313 
104, 
Bradley    v.    Anderson,    20      Pa. 
Co.    Ct.    R.    236 
V.   Gaghan,   208   Pa.   511 

15,    107,    134, 
V.    Pacheteau,    71    App.    Div. 

148 
V.    Simpson,    93   111.    93 
V.    Stafford,    48   Hun    620 
V.   Ward,   162   N.   Y.   618     151, 
Brady   v.    Anderson,    24   111.    110 
121,    176, 
Brainard    v.    Kings    County,    84 
Hun    290,    155    N.    Y.    538      64, 
Brandt  v.  Burke,   100  App.   Div. 
396 
V.    Burke,    110  App.   Div.    396 
249, 
V.    New   York,   186   N.   Y.    599 
249, 
V.    Radley,    23    N.    Y.    Supp. 
277  185, 

V.    Verdon,    18    N.    Y.    Supp. 
119 
Branham   v.   Nye,    9   Colo.   App. 
19  111, 

Brashear    v.    Alexandria    Coop- 
erage   Co.     (La.)    23    So.    540 
Bratton  v.  Ralph,   14   Ind.  App. 
153  45 

Bray  v.  Smith,  87  Iowa  339 
Breed    v.     Gardner,     187     Mass. 
300  177, 

V.  Glasgow  Inv.  Co.,  92  Fed. 
760 
Breneman    v.    Beaumont    Lum- 
ber   Co.,    12    Tex.      Civ.    App. 


20 
136 
209 

266 


517 
V.  Harvey,  70  Iowa 


65, 
479 

66, 
Mich. 
121, 


Brennan     v.    Miller,     97 

182 
v.    Swasey,    16    Cal.    140   116, 
Breuchaud     v.     New     York,     61 

Hun     564 
Brewer      v.    Hugg,    114        Iowa 

486  265, 

Brewster       v.     McLaughlin,     28 

Misc.    Rep.    50 
Brezinski    v.    Neeves,    93    Wis. 

567 
Bricker      v.    Gresham,    1       Mo. 

App.    Rep'r.     421 
Bridwell   v.    Clark,    39    Mo.   170 
Briggs    V.    Bruce,    9    Colo.   282 
v.   Worrell,    33    Mo.    157 


161 

218 
31 

175 
31 

239 

117 

257 

112 
293 
156 
144 

177 

65 

257 

257 

257 

223 

110 

297 

98 

186 
139 

182 

109 

76 
80 

261 
174 

242 

298 

231 

173 

235 
164 
273 
235 


Brig-ham  v.  De  Wald,  7  Ind. 
App.     115  194, 

Brill    V.   De    Turk,    130    Cal.    241 

57, 

Brinckerhoff  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation,   37    How.    Prac.    499 

Bringham  v.  Knox,  127  Cal.  40 
67,     102,   205, 

Bringhurst  v.  Mutual  Building 
&c.  Ass'n.,  (Tex.)  47  S.  W. 
831 

Brink  v.  Bartlett,  105  La.  336 
172, 

Bristol  V.  Evans,   124  Mass.   548 

Bristol  Brick  Works  v.  King 
College,  (Tenn.)  41  S.  W. 
1069 

Bristol-Goodson  Light  etc.  Co. 
V.  Bristol  Gas,  etc.  Co.,  99 
Tenn.     371  122,   176, 

Brockmeier    v.    Dette,    58      Mo. 


App.    607  117, 

Broderick     v.     Boyle,     1       Abb. 

Prac.    319 
Broderick     v.    Poilon,    2    E.    D. 
Smith,    (N.    Y.)    554  53, 

Brodt  V.  Rohkar,  48  Iowa  36 
Brokaw    v.    Tyler,    91    111.    App. 

148 
Broman   v.   Young,   35   Hun    (N. 

Y.)     173 

Brooks    v.    Blackwell,    76      Mo. 

309 

V.  Lester,   36  Md.   65  130, 

Brosnan   v.    Trulson,    164    Mass. 

410  112, 

Browinski    v.    Pickett,    24    Ky. 

Law    Rep.    305 
Brown    v.    Allis,    98    Wis.    120 

98 
v.   Boker,    20   D.    C.    99 
V.    Brown,    34   Tenn.    431 
V.    Cornwell,    (Va.)    60    S.    E. 
623  117, 

V.    Cowan,    110    Pa.    588 

48,   53, 
V.    Crump,   32   Tenn.   531 
V.    Danforth,    37    App.    Div. 

321 
V.    Harper,    4    Ore.    89 
v.    Jacobi,     57    Tenn.     335 
V.   Jones,    52   Minn.    484      140, 
V.  Kolb,  8  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  413 
99,    109,    112,    114, 
V.   La   Crosse   City   Gas   etc., 
Co.,   16  Wis.   555  103, 

V.    Lowell,    79    111.    484 

67,    77,   240, 
V.    Moore,    26    111.    421 
V.    Morrison,    5   Ark.    217 
V.  Myers,   145  Pa.  St.    17    105, 
V.   Peterson,   2   Woodw.   Dec. 

(Pa.)     112 
V.   Rodocker,    65   Iowa   55 
V.    School    Dist.,    48    Kan.  709 
94. 
V.    Smith,    55    Iowa    31 
V.    Trane,    98   Wis.    1 
V.   Trimble    (Wash.)    93   Pac. 

317 
V.    "Waring,    1    App.  D.  C.   378 
V.   Welch,    5   Hun    (N.  Y.)  582 
V.  West.     7  Pa.  Co.  Ct.     R.  619 
V.   Williams,    120   Pa.    24 


269 

170 

10 

206 

236 

184 
254 

98 

179 
121 
240 

239 

274 

26 

26 

269 
160 

250 

58 

259 
247 
234 

249 

54 
67 

223 
165 
131 

274 

116 

237 

296 
94 
27 

108 

132 

22 

166 

165 

94 

123 
97 
112 
267 
189 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Brown  v.  Wood,  2  Hilt.  (N. 
Y.)     579  243 

V.  Wright,  25  Mo.  App.   54        103 
V.    Wyman,    56    Iowa    452  13 

V.  Zeiss,    9   Daly    (N.   Y.)    240 

25,   187 
Browne    v.    Smith,    2      Browne 

(Pa.)     229  85 

Brovhill    v.    Gaither,    119    N.    C. 

443  126,   132,   280 

Brubaker   v.    Bennett,    19    Utah 

401  111 

Bruce   v.   Berg,   8   Mo.   App.   204     97 
V.  Hoos,   48  Mo.  App.   161,   67 
Mo.    App.    264 

86,    114,    179,    274,   297 
V.   Lennon,    52   Minn.    547   49,   248 
V.  Pearsall,   59  N.  J.  Law   62     79 
Bruck    V.    Bowermaster,    36    111. 

App.   510  37 

Brugman    v.    McGuire,    32    Ark. 

733  284 

Brumbaugh   In   re.   43  W.   N.   C. 

(Pa.)     271  57 

Brumme  v.  Herod,  38  App.  Div. 

558  1"9 
Brundage    v.    Phillips,    3    Grant 

Cas.   (Pa.)    313  105 

Bruner  v.   Sheik,   9   Watts  &  S. 

(Pa.)    119  26 

Bruner    Granitoid   Co.   v.    Klein 

(Mo.),    73    S.   W.    313  74 

Brunner  v.   Marks,    98   Cal.  374      254 
V.    Picking,    75    111.    App.    393      10 
Brunold     v.     Glasser,     25     Misc. 

Rep.   285  35,   258 

Bruns  v.  Braun,  35  Mo.  App. 
337  13,    96,   110 

V.    Capstick,     46    Mo.      App. 

397  116 

Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  Warwick 
Electric  Manuf'g  Co.,  6  Ohio 
Dec.    459  14,    44,    66,      89 

Bryan    v.    Abbott,    131    Cal.    222 

106,   236 
V.   Whitford,    66    111.    33  48 

Bryant    v.    Grady,    98    Me.    389 

176,   195 
Brydon    v.    Lutes,    9    Man.      R. 

463  27,   32,      64 

Bryson    v.    St.    Helen,    79    Hun 

167  115 

Buchanan    v.    Selden,     43    Neb. 

559  94,  256 
V.  Smith,  43  Miss.  90  138 
V.    Cole,    57    Mo.    App.    11 

103,   116,   138 

Buchter  v.  Dew,    39   111.    40   144,   292 

Buck   V.   Brian.    3   Miss.    874  79 

V.    Hall,    170    Mass.    419      150,   269 

Buckingham      v.      Plummerfelt 

(N.   Dak.),   106  N.   W.   403  16 

Buckland   v.    Goit,    23    Kan.    327   102 
Buckley    v.    Boutellier,    61    111. 

293  272 

Buckley  v.  Commercial  Nat. 
Bank.    62    111.    App.    202 

113,    114.    136,   138 
V.    Hann,    68    N.    J.    Law    624 

64,   267 
V.    Taylor,    51   Ark.    302 

58,   100,   122 
Buckstaff    V.    Dunbar,    15    Neb. 
114  142 


[References  are  to  sections.'] 
Budd 


Lucky,    28    N.    J.    Law 

484,      55 
V.     School    Dist.,     51     N.       J. 

Law   36  66 

Buell    V.    Brown,    131    Cal.    158 

96,   254 
Buess   V.   Pugh   &  Co.,    92   N.   Y. 

S.    359  109 

Bugger   V.    Cresswell    (Pa.),    12 

Atl.    829  182 

Builders'       Supply       Depot       v. 
O'Connor    (Cal.),    88   Pac.    982 

209,   260 
Building   Assn.    v.    Coburn,    150 

Ind.    684  82,   148a,   162 

Building,    &c.,    Mill    Co.    v.   Hu- 

ber,    42    Mo.    App.    432  273 

Bulger    V.    Robertson,    50      Mo. 

A  p  p .    4  9  9  85 

Bulkley    v.    Kimball,    19    N.    Y. 

Supp.    672  109 

Bulkly  V.   Healy,  58   Hun   608        210 

Bullard    v.    De    Groff,    59    Neb. 

783  175 

V.   Dudley,    101   Ga.   299  74 

Bullock    V.    Horn,    44    Ohio    St. 

420  200,   44,   197 

Bumgartner    v.     Hall,     163     111. 

1  o  f?  9  7  9 

Bunton  v.  Palm,   (Tex.)   9  S.  W. 

182  208 

Euntyn    v.    Shippers'    Compress 

Co.,    63    Miss.    94  159 

Burbank    v.    Wright,    44    Minn. 

544  188 

Eurdick    v.    Moulton,    53    Iowa 

761  150 

Burke    v.    Brown,    10    Tex.    Civ. 

App.    298,    30   S.   W.    936  99 

Burkhart   v.   Reisig,   24   111.    539 

33     240 
Burkitt    V.    Harper,     79    N.    y! 

273  27,   110 

Burleigh  Bldg.  Co.  v.  Merchant 

Brick,  etc.  Co.,   13   Colo.  App. 

455  96,   97,    184.   299,    300 

Burlingim  v.  Warner,   39  Nebr. 

493  143 

Burling's      Estate,    In      re.,      1 

Ashm.     (Pa.)     377  12 

Burlington       Manuf'g       Co.       v. 

Commissioners,    67    Minn.    327      10 
Burn      V.    Whittlesev.    2      Mac- 
Arthur     (D.     C.)     189  210 
Burnap  v.  Svlvania  Butter  Co., 

12    Ohio    Cir.    Ct.    R.    639 

23,   44,      48 
Burnham  v.   Raymond,   64  App. 

Div.    596  275 

Burns  v.    Carlson,   53  Minn.   70      189 
V.     Phinney,     53     Minn.     431 

204,   220 
V.    Sewell,    48    Minn.    435  19 

Burnside  v.  O'Hara  35  111.  App. 

150  16,      68 

Burr    v.    Kerchner,    99    N.    Car. 

263  130 

V.    Mazer,    2    Pa.    Super.    Ct. 

436  --*5^ 

Burrell   v.   Way,    176   Mass.   164 

97,   220,   268 
Burrough    v.    White,       IS      Mo. 

App.    229  117 

v.    Tostevan,    75   N.    Y.    567        284 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


^References  are  to  sections.'i 


Burst   V.  Jackson,  10  Barb.    (N. 

y.)    219  58,   74 

Burstein,   In   re,   68  N.  Y.   Supp. 

742  124 

Burt     V.     Parker     County,       77 
Tex.   338  67 

V.    Washington,    3    Cal.    246        12 
Burtch    V.    McGibbon,    98    Mich. 

139  23,   33 

Burton     v.     Ring-rose,     63     Hun 

163  183 

Buser  v.    Shepard,   107   IncL   417 

153,    283 
Busfleld    V.    Wheeler,    96    Mass. 

139  18,    166,    237,    262 

Bush    V.    Connelly,    33    111.    447 

204,  255,  274 
Bush   Co.   V.   Barr,    76   Mo.   App. 

380  174 

Bushong  V.   Graham,   4   Cir.   Ct. 

Rep.  138  81 

Busso    V.     Fette,    55    Mo.    App. 
453  116 

V.  "Voss,  9  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  441 

77,   91,   230 

Butler  V.  Aquehonga  Land  Co. 

86  App.  Div.   439  54 

V.   Flynn,  51  App.  Div.  225  36 

V.    Gain,    128    111.    23  68 

V.  Magie,   2  E.  D.   Smith    (N. 

Y.)    654  201 

V.   Rivers,   4   R.  I.   38  204 

Butler-Ryan    Co.    v.    Silvey,    70 

Minn.   507  177 

Butterworth    v.    Levy,    104    Cal. 

506  33 

Byrd  v.  Cochran,   39  Neb.   109 

85,    119,    120,    134,   136 


Fair    Plain    Literary 
(Mich.),    97      N.      W. 


Cady     V 
Ass'n. 

680  198 

Cady   Lumber   Co.    v.    Conkling 
(Neb.),   98  N.  W.    42  106 

V.  Greater  American  Expo- 
sition Co.  (Iowa.),  93 
N.  W.  961  12 

Cadwell    v.    Brackett    2    Wash. 

321  262 

Cahill   V.    Capen,   147   Mass.    493      85 
V.    Ely,    55    Mo.    App.    102  112 

V.    McCornish,      74    Mo.   App. 

609  292 

V.  Orphan  School  of  Chris- 
tian Church,  63  Mo. 
App.    28  112,   117 

Cahn      V.       Romandorf,     (Neb.) 

93   N.   TV.    411  161 

Cahoon    v.    Fortune    Min.,    &c., 
Co.,   26  Utah   86  97 

V.   Levy,   6   Cal.    295  154 

Cain    V.    Texas    Building,     &c., 
Assn.     (Tex.),    51    S.    W.    879 

131,   175 
Caldwell  v.  Asbury,  29  Ind.  451 

103,   104,   238 
V.  Carter,   147   Pa.   370  295 

V.  Lawrence,   10  Wis.   331  165 

V.    Winder,    Fed.    Cas.       No. 

18245  99,   194 

Calhoun  v.  Mahon.  14  Pa.  56         113 
California    Iron     Const.    Co.    v. 
Bradbury,   138  Cal.  328  32,  34 


Calkins  v.  Miller,  55  Neb.  601       213 
Callaway    v.    Freeman,    29    Ga. 

408  27,   36 

Calvert   v.   McKinney,    2   Posey, 

Unrep.    Cas.    345  79 

Cambridge    tile     Mfg.      Co.      v. 
Germania   Bank.    128    Ga.    178  64 

Camden    Wood-Turning    Co.    v. 

Malcolm,    190    Pa.    St.    62  257 

Cameron    v.    Campbell,    141    F. 
32  76,    272 

V.    Fay,    55   Tex.    58  139 

V.    Gebbard,    85    Tex.    610  25 

V.   McCullough,    11    R.   I.    173      33 
V.    Marshall,    65    Tex.    7 

25,  79,  284 
V.    Terrell    (Tex.),    36    S.    W. 

142  79,    80 

Campbell      v.      Cameron      (Ind. 
Ter.),    82    S.    W.    762  56,    58 

V.    Coon,    149   N.   Y.    556 

32,    47,    65 
V.    Fields,    35    Tex.    751  33 

V.    Green,    &c..    Lumber    Co., 

99   111.   App.   647  68 

V.  Hildebrandt,  68  Tex.  22  66 

V.    Jacobson,    145    111.    389 

25,    80,    113 
V.   John  Taylor  Mfg.  Co.,   64 

N.   J.    Eq.    344  12,    14,    18 

V.  Scaife,  8  Leg.  Int.  74 

57,   127,  245,  246 
Campbell's   Appeal,    36    Pa.    247 

140,    164 
Canady   v.   Webb,    25    Ky.    Law 

Rep.    2107  127 

Canisius  v.  Merrill,   65   111.   67  15 

Cannon    v.    Helfrick,      99      Ind. 
164  35 

v.     Williams,    14    Colo.    21        122 
Canton    Roll,    &c.,    Co.    v.    Roll- 
ing   Mill    Co.,    155    F.    321 

86,    108,    123,   235 
Cantwell    v.    Massman,    45    Mo. 

103  239 

Capital      Lumbering       Co.       v. 

Ryan,   34    Or.   73  161,   219 

Capp  V.   Stewart,   38   Ind.   479 

29,  45 
Capron  v.  Strout,  11  Nev.  304  98 
Carew    v.     Stubbs,      155     Mass. 

549  157,   159 

Carey    v.    Kemper,    40    Ohio    St. 
79  11 

V.  Wintersteen,  60  Pa.  395  113 
Carev-Lombard  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Bierbauer,  76  Minn.  434  140,  277 
V.  Burnet,  68  111.  App.  475  174 
V.  Carrier,  92  111.  App.  269  261 
V.    Dougherty,    125    111.    App. 

258  250 

V.    FuUenwider,    150    111.    629 

71,    75,    77.    118,   219 
V.   Partridge,    10   Utah    322 

27,   67 
V.   Jones,   187   111.    203  36 

V.    Thomas,    92    Tenn.    587  77 

Carl    V.    Grosse,    23     Ky.     Law 

Rep.    1586  264 

Carle    v.    Neeld,    10    Kulp    (Pa.) 

101  174 

Carlisle     v.     Knapp,     51     N.     J. 

Law   329  58 

Carlson    v.     Anderson,     66     111. 
App.    662  113 


XXIV 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


\_References 

Carman    v.    Incrow,     2     B.     D. 

Smith    (N.    Y.)    689  67 

Carnegie    v.    Hulbert,    70    Fed. 

209  182,   184 

Carney    v.    Cook,    80    Iowa    747 
V.  La  Crosse  &  M.  R.  Co.,  15 

Wis.  503  272,  277,  278 

V.    Tully,   74   in.   575  77 

Carpenter    v.    Furrey,    128    CaL 
665  185 

V.    Jacques,    2    E.    D.    Smith 

(N.    Y.)    571  201 

V.    Leonard,    5    Minn.    155 

29,    117,    136,    138 
V.      Wilverschied,      5      Minn. 

170  29,    117 

Carr    v.    Hooper,    48    Kan.    253 

85,    120 
Carriger    v.     Mackey,     15     Ind. 
App    392 

82,    155,"  162,    148a,    216,    220,    244 
Carroll     v.     Coughlin,     7     Abb. 
Prac.    (N.   Y.)    72  201 

V.    Craine,    9    111.    563  255 

V.   Shooting  the   Chutes   Co., 

85    Mo.    App.    563  14 

Carson    v.    Boudinot,    2    Wash. 
C    C.    33  27 

V.    White,     6     Gill     (Md.)     17 

80,   100,   116,   231 
Carson    Opera    House    Assn.    v. 

Miller,    16   Nev.    327  170 

Carswell    v.    Patzowski    (Del.), 

55    A.    1013  94,    225,     234 

Carter   v.    Eradv    (Fla.),    41    So. 
539  127,    165,    166 

V.    Martin     (Ind.),    53    N.    E. 

1066  23,  47 

Carter  Lumber  Co.  v.   Simpson, 

83    Tex.    370  85,    225 

Carthage    Marble,    Etc.,    Co.    v. 

Bauman.   44   Mo.  App.  386,   29,   262 
Carv  Hardware  Co.  v.  McCarty 
((:olo.),    50    P.    744 

8,   14,   98,   104,   109,  141,   138 

Case  V.  Arnett.  26  N.  J.  Eq.  459  296 

Case    Manufg.    Co.    v.    Garven, 

45    O.    S.    289  138 

V.  Smith,   40  Fed.  339         178,  228 

Casey   v.    Connors   Bros.    Const 

Co.,   53  Misc.   Rep.    101 

V.   Weaver,    141   Mass.    280 


Maxwell,     39     Minn. 


Cassan 

391 
Casserlv    v.    Waite,     124     Mich. 

157 
Cassidv    v.    Fontham,    14    X.    Y. 

Supp".    151 
Castagnino   v.   Balletta,    82   Cal. 

250 
Castelli  v.  Trahan,  77  App.  Div. 

472 
Castleberrv  v.  Johnston.  92  Ga. 

499 
Castler    v.    Humbold,    12    Iowa, 

287 
Catanach    v.    Cassidy,     159    Pa. 

474 
V.    Ingersoll,    1    Phila.    285 

126,  259,   262 
Catlin    V.   Douglas,    33    Fed.    569 

23,  75,  95,  97 


184 
194 
170 
220 
262 
250 
284 
229 
186 
246 


are  to  sections.^ 

Cattaberry    v.    Knox,    17    App. 

Div.    (N.    Y.)    372 
Cattell   V.    Fergusson,    3    Wash. 

541 
Caulfleld  v.   Polk,    17    Ind.   App. 

429  45,    47, 

Cawley    v.    Day,    4    S.    D.    221 
Caylor    v.    Thorn,    125    Ind.    201 

45.    66, 
Central,  &c.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henning, 

52    Tex.    466 
Central   City  Brick  Co.  v.  Nor- 
folk,   &c.,    R.    Co.,    44    "W.    Va. 

286  235, 

Central    Loan    &c.    Co.    v.    Sul- 
livan,   44    Neb.    834 
Central    Lumber    Co.,    v.    Brad- 
dock   Land,    &c.,    Co.,    84  Ark. 

560  19,    128,    136,    137, 

Center,    107    Cal.    193 
Central    of    Georgia    R.    Co.    v. 

Shivers,     125     Ga.     218 
Central    Planing    Mill,    &c.,    Co. 

V.     Betz,     29     Ky.    Law     Rep. 

252 
Central    Trust    Co.    v.    Bartlett, 

57    N.   J.    Law    206 

V.    Cameron    Iron,    &c.,    Co., 

47    Fed.    136  12, 

V.    Continental    Iron   Works, 

51    N.    J.    Eq.    605 

Cessna's   Appeal    (Pa.),    10    Atl. 

1 
Chace   v.   Pidge,    21   Pc    I.    70 
Chadbourn    v.    Williams,    71    N. 

C.    444 
Chadwick  v.  Hunter,   1  Man.  R. 

39  98, 

Chaffee  v.   Sehestedt    (Neb.),   96- 

N.   W.    161 
Challoner    v.    Howard,    41    Wis. 

355 
Chamberlain     v.     Hibbard,     26 

Or.    428 
V.    McCarthy,    59    Hun   158 
V.    O'Connor,    1   E.    D.   Smith 
(N.    Y.)     665 
Chambers     v.     Benoit,     25     Mo. 

App.     520 
V.     Yarnall,    15    Pa. 


265 

85,    90, 

Chambersburg      Woolen      Mfg. 
Co.    V.      Hazelet,     3     Brewst. 
(Pa.)    98 
Chandler    v.     Hanna,     73     Ala. 
390  120, 

Chapin    v.      Persse,    &c.,    Paper 
Works,   30  Conn.   461 

8,    19,    21,    22, 
Chapman    v.    Bolton    Steel    Co. 
2    O.    C.    D.    523 
V.   Brewer,    43    Neb.    890 

9,  88,  119,  136, 
V.  Eneberg.   95   Mo.  App.   128 
V.    Faith,    18    Pa.    Super.    Ct. 
578  48, 

V.    Wadleigh,    33   Wis.    267 
Chapman     Valve     Mfg.     Co.     v. 
Oconto    Water    Co.     v.     Wis. 
2R4 
"Ihappell      V.      Smith,      40      Neb. 
579 


200 

262 

68 
270 

82 

7 

251 
98 

257 
296 

26 

261 

160 

130 

160 

86 
106 

85 

196 

162 

250 

115 
263 

231 

27 
260 

9 

212 

85 
233 

140 
170 


10 
102 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


XXV 


iReferences  are  to  sections.'] 


Charles     v.     Hallack      Lumber, 

&c.,    Co.,    22    Colo.    2S3  259 

Charleston  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Brockmyer,  18  W.  Va. 
586  163 

Charlton    v.    Scoville,     68    Hun 

348  126 

Charnley   v.   Honig,   74  Wis.   163    49 
Charnock    v.    Colfax,    51    Iowa, 

70  10 

Chase  v.  Christenson,  92  Iowa, 
405  296 

V.   Garver   Coal,    &c.,   Co.,    90 

Iowa    25  98 

V.    James,     10    Hun     (N.    Y.) 

506  94 

Cheatham  v.  Rowland,  92  N.  C. 

340  26 

Cheesborough        v.        Asheville 

Sanatorium,    134   N.   C.   245  159 

Chenev  v.  Trov  Hospital  Assn., 
65    N.    Y.    282  127 

V.    Wolf,     2     Lans.     (N.     Y.) 

188  86 

Cherry  St.,  In  re,  27  Misc.  Rep. 

682  182 

Cheshire      Provident      Inst.      v. 

Stone,   52   N.   H.    365 
Chester        City        Presbyterian 
Church  V.   Conlin,    11   Pa.   Su- 
per. Ct.  413,   19  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
515  12. 

Chicago,   &c.,    R.    Co.   v.   Moran, 
187    111.    316 
V.    Woodward,    159   Ind.    541 
Chicago    Artesian    Well    Co.    v. 

Corev,  60  111.  73 
Chicago   Bldg.,   &c.,  Co.   v.   Tal- 
botton    Creamery,     &c.,      Co., 
106   Ga.   84 
Chicago    Lumber    Co.    v.    Allen, 
52    Kan.    795 
V.   Anderson,    51   Neb.   159 
V.      Des      Moines         Driving 
Park,   97   Iowa  25 

99,    104,    121, 

V.    Dillon    (Colo.),     56     Pac. 

9S9  24,    30, 

106,    107,    129,    140,    205,    206 

V.    Fretz,    51    Kan.    134  26 

V.    Garmer    (Iowa),    109    N. 

W.   780  257,   261 

V.  Mahan,  53  Mo.  App.  425  32 

V.      Merrimac      River      Sav. 

Bank,    52     Kan.    410  97 

V.    Newcomb    (Colo.),    74    P. 

786  55,    111,   255 

V.    Schweiter,   45    Kan.   207  27 

V.   Tomlinson,   54   Kan.   770 
V.   Woodside,   71   Iowa   361 
Chicago  Sash,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Shaw, 

44    111.    App.    618 

Chicago     Smokeless    Fuel     Gas 

Co.     V.     Lyman,     62    111.    App. 

538  11,    139, 

Childers   v.    Greenville,    69    Ala. 

103 

Childress    v.    Smith    (Tex.),    37 

S.    "U^    1076  49, 

Childs    V.    Anderson,    128    Mass. 

108 

V.     Bostwick,     12     Dalv     (N. 

Y.)  15  ■  120, 


157 


184 


273 
216 


19 


101 


127 
155 


154 


95 

67 


68 


186 


127 

236 

22 

284 


Chilton  V.  Lindsay,  38  Mo.  App. 

57  127,    181 

Chisholm    v.    Randolph,    21    111. 
App.    312  164 

V.      Williams,    128    111.      115 

164,    261 
Choteau   v.    Thompson,    2   O.    S. 
114  11,  29, 

44,    81,     85,      129,      134,      141,      154 
Christian  v.  Allee,  104  111.  App. 

177  80,    121 

V.     Illinois     Malleable     Iron 

Co.,    92   111.   App.    320   26,   135 
V.    O'Neal,    46    Miss.    669    220,    233 
Christian-Craft    Grocery   Co.    v. 

Kling,   121  Ala.  292  155,  239 

Christie    Mfg.    Co.,    In      re,      15 

Misc.    Rep.   588  66 

Christine    v.    Maderson,    2    Pa. 

363  106 

Christman     v.     Charleville,     36 

Mo.    610  6 

Christnot      v.      Montana      Gold, 

&c.,    Co.,    1    Mont.    44  194 

Church      V.      Davis,      9      TV^atts 
(Pa.),    304  258 

V.   Griffith,   9  Pa.   117  138 

v.   Smither,   4  Colo.  App.   175 

2,   48 
Cincinnati    v.    McNeelv,    7    Ohio 

Dec.    216  ■  77,   91 

Cincinnati  Const.  Brew.  Co.,  In 

re,    9    Dec.    519  81,    147 

Citizens'    Bank    v.    Maureu,    37 

La.  Ann.   857  279 

Claes      v.     Dallas      Homestead, 

&c.,   Assn.,   83    Tex.   50  79 

Clanagan   v.    O'Connell,    88    Mo. 

App.   1  267 

Clancy  v.  Plover,    107   Cal.   272      195 
Clapper  v.   Strong,   41  Misc.   184 

240,   292 
Clark    v.     Anderson,     88     Minn. 
200  94 

v.  Boarman,  89  Md.  428  114 

V.  Brown,  22  Mo.  140,  25  Mo. 

559  211225 

V.  Butler,   32   N.   J.  Eq.   664  '     214 
V.   Edwards,    119   N.   C.   115  56 

V.  Haggerty,  3  O.  C.  D.  118 

44,    66 
V.   Huey,    12   Ind.   App.    224 

57,   67,    80.    112,    194,   250,   270 
V.    Kingslev,    90    Mass.    543  58 

V.   Manning,   90  111.   380   33,        228 
V.  Maxwell,  12  Ind.  App.  199 

216,  288,  289 
V.    Miller,    14    Pa.    Co.    Ct.    R. 

227  90 

V.   Moore,    64   111.    273  178,   228 

V.    North,    131    Wis.   599  30 

V.  Parker,  58  Iowa  509 

140,    188,   214 
V.   Raymond,   27   Mich.   456 

288,    295 
V,   Schatz,   24  Minn.   300  109 

V.    Taylor,   91    Cal.    552 

247,    301,    302 
Clarke  v.  Boyle,   51   111.   104  197 

V.    Heylman,    80    App.    Div. 

572  108.    205,    235 

V.  Ratcliffe,   8  Miss.   162  223 

Clarkson      v.      Louderback,      36 
Fla.    660  165,    166,    297 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


IReferences  are  to  sections.'] 


Claycomb    v.    Cecil, 


111. 


497 

34,  274 
Clavpool  V.  German  F.  Ins.  Co., 

32    Ind.   App.   540  148a 

Clavton   V.   Farrar  Lumber  Co., 

119    Ga.    37  232 

Clear    Creek,    &c.,    Min.    Co.    v. 

Root,   1   Colo.   374 

126,  197,  272,  274,  297 
Clement  v.  Newton,  78  111.  427  177 
Clements    v.    Hamilton,    5    Dec. 

Re.    126  69 

Cleverly   v.   Moseley,   148   Mass. 

280  104 

Cline   V.    Shell    (Ore.),    73   P.    12 

47,  261 
Close  V.  Clark,  16  Daly    (N.  Y.) 

91  109,   253 

V.    Hunt,    8    Blkf.    (Ind.)    254 

82,  151,  216,  301 
Closson    V.     Billman,     161     Ind. 

610  171,  248 

Clough    V.    McDonald,    18    Kan. 

114  19.   127 

Clymer  Paving  Co.  v.  Donegan, 

4  Pa.  Dist.   R.   243  15 

Coats      V.      Dickenson,      5      Alb. 

Law   J.    333  258 

Coburn    v.    Stephens,    137    Ind. 
683  45,    82,    103,    143,   148a,    216 

V.   Tyler,   41    111.   354  34 

Cocciola      V.      "Wood-Dlckerson 

Supply  Co.,  136  Ala.  532         85,  255 
Cochran    v.    Baker,    34    Or.    555      122 
V.   Wimberly,   44   Miss.   503        140 
V.   Yoho    (Wash.),    75   P.    815 

48,  261 
Cockerill    v.    Loonam,    36    Hun 

353 
Cockrill    v.    Davie    (Mont.),    35 

Pac.   958 
Coddington   v.    Beebe,    29   N.    J. 
Law     550  12,    184, 

v.    Dry    Dock    Co.,    31    N.    J. 
Law    477 
Codv  v.  Turn  Verein,  167  N.  T. 
607 
V.   White,    34  Misc.   Rep.    638 

99,  284 
Coenen  v.  Straub,  74  Iowa  32  15 
Cogel  V.   Mickow,    11   Minn.   475 

10,  130,  149,  211 
Coggan  V.  Reeves,  3  Or.  275  220 
Cohn    V.    T\"right,    89       Cal.     86 

11.  49,  239,  270 
Colcord    V.     Funck,      1     Morris 

(Iowa)    178  233 

Cole     V.     Barron,     8     Mo.     App. 
509  114,   238,   240,   261,   267,    270 

V.    Clark.    85    Me.    336  97 

V.  Colbv,  57  N.  H.  98  212 

V.  Custer  County  Agricul- 
tural, Etc.,  Assn..  3  S. 
D.   272  271,    "-" 

V.  Hall,   12   P.   R.   584 
V.    Uhl,    4  6    Conn.    296 
Cole  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Falls,  92  Tenn. 

607,    90   Tenn.    466  75 

Coleman    v.    Ballandi,    22    Minn. 

144  10,    25 

V.   Freeman,   3  Ga.   137  212 

Collev  V.   Doughty,   62   Me.   501      225 

Collier     v.     Betterton,     8     Tex. 

Civ.   App.    479  33,    34 


3 

185 

249 

12 

94 


1 
111 


Collini   V.   Nicolson,    51   Ga.    560 

48, 
Collins      V.      Drew,      50      How. 
Prac.    (N.    Y.)    477  12, 

V.    Megraw,    47    Mo.    495 
V.    Mott,    45   Mo.    100  2, 

V.   Patch,   156  Mass.   317 

132, 
V.  Schoch,  14  W.  N.  C.   485 
V.  Snoke,  9  Wash.  566 

104,   106,  107, 
Collum    V.    Pennsylvania    Paint 

&  Ochre  Co.,  185  Pa.   St.   411 
Colman    v.    Goodno^w,    36    Minn. 
9  26, 

Colorado   Iron   Works   v.   Rick- 
enberg    (Idaho),    38    Pac.    651 
21, 
V.  Taylor  (Col.),  55  Pac.  942 
76,    154, 
Colter   V.   Frese,    45   Ind.    96 

58,    67, 
Columbia    Building,    &c.,    Assn. 

V.   Taylor,   25   111.   App.   429 
Columbus    Iron    Works    Co.    v. 

Loudon,    53    Ga.    433 
Columbus    Mach.    Mfg.     Co.     v. 

Dorwin,   25  111.   153 
Colvin   V.   Weimer,    64   Minn.    37 
Combs    V.    Lippincott,    35    N.    J. 

Law    481 
Commercial     Loan,     &c.,     Assn. 

V.  Trevette,  160  111.  390 
Commissioners,    Etc.,    of    Tren- 
ton v.   Fell.   52   N.  J.   Eq.   689 
Commonwealth,    &c..   Trust    Co. 
v.   Ellis,    192   Pa.    St.   431 

57.    142,    164,    174, 

Compound  Lumber  Co.  v.  Fehl- 

hammer  Planing  Mill  Co.,   59 

Mo.   App.    661 

V.    Murphv,    169   111.   343 

Compton    V.    Sankey,    29    C.    C. 

(Pa.)    25 
Comstock   V.   McEvoy,   52   Mich. 

324 
Conboy  v.   Fricke,   50   Ala.    414 
Concord    Apartment   House   Co. 
v.   O'Brien,   128   111.  App.   437 
32,   173, 
V.  Von  Platen.   106   111.  App. 
40 
Condon    v.    Church    of    St.    Au- 
gustine,    112     App.     Div.     168 
49, 
Dorsey,    3   Ohio  N.   P. 


Conev   V. 

162 
Congdon 


V.    Cook,    55    Minn.    1 


V.   Kendall,   53  Neb.   282        65 

Conklin    v.    Plant,    34    111.    App. 

264  64. 

V.   Wood.   3   E.   D.    Smith    (N. 

Y.)    662  119, 

Coulee    V.    Clark,    14    Ind.    App. 

205  82,   96, 

Conley  v.  Zweighaft,  7  Pa. 

Dist.  R.  87 
Conn  V.  State,  125  Ind.  514 
Connecticut  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co. 

V.  Stewart,  95  Ind.  588 
Connell  v.  Ker,  9  Pa.  Dist.  R. 
145 
V.  Nicol.  2  Lack.  Leg.  N. 
(Pa.)  177 


243 

94 

37 
138 

149 

246 

112 
157 
120 

99 
239 

68 

228 

198 

240 
13 

12 

180 

10 

173 


19 
74 


99 
154 


179 
35 

301 

153 

36 
94 

128 

120 

216 

136 
172 

282 

173 

124 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


XXVll 


Conner  v.   Lewis,    16    Me.    268 
Conrad    v.    Starr,    50    Iowa,    470 

153,  198,  199 
Conroy  v.  Perry,  26  Kan.  472  95 
Consociated    Presbyterian    See. 

V.    Staples,    23    Conn.    544  55 

Consolidated     Engineering-    Co. 

V.    Crowley,    105    La.    615  175 

Conter        v.        Farrington,        46 

Minn.  336  23.   106 

Continental  Building  &  Loan 
Assn.  V.  Hutton,  144  Cal. 
609  121 

Conway  v.  Crook,  66  Md.  290  56 

Cook   In  re,    Fed   Cas.   No.    3,151   129 
Cook    V.    Belshaw,    23    Ont.    R. 
545  160 

V.  Gallatin  R.  Co.,  72  P.  678, 

230,    231,   259 
V.    Goodyear,    79     "Wis.     606 

27,  207 
V.  Heald,  21  III.  425  34,  240,  241 
V.    Herring,    30    Pittsb.    Leg. 

J.    (N.   S.)   70  179 

V.    Hunt,    24    111.    535  179 

V.   Murphy,   150   Pa.    41  57,    64 

V.    Rofinot,    21    111.    437  240 

V.    Rome    Brick   Co.,    98   Ala. 
409 

16,     21.     102,     120,     210,     244 

V.   Ross,   117  N.   C.   193  16 

V.    Vreeland,    21    111.    431  34 

Cooke   V.  Haungs,   113   111.   App. 

501 
Cooley    V.    Black    (Ky.),    48    S. 

W.   1075 
Cooper    V.    Cleghorn,    50     Wis. 

113 

Cooper    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Delahunt, 

36    Or.    402  119,    121, 

Coorsen   v.   Ziehl,    103   "Wis.    381 

Copeland    v.    Manton,    22    Ohio 

St.    398  59,    66,    92 

Copley      V.      O'Neil,      39      How. 

Prac.    (N.    Y.)    41        11,    26.    30 

Corbett    v.    Chambers,    109    Cal. 

178  86,    106,    107,    119 

V.    Greenlaw,    117    Mass.    167 

26,    264,    267 
Cordeville    v.    Hosmer,    16    La. 

590  279 

Cornelius  v.   Grant,   8   Mo.    59  86 

V.    Uhler,     2    Browne     (Pa.) 
229  131 

Cornell  v.  Barney,  94  N.  T.   394 

27,    29 
V.       Conine-Eaton       Lumber 

149,    223,    225,    226,    231 
Co.     (Colo.),    47    P.    912 
V.    Kime     (Neb.),     89    N.    W. 

254  256 

V.  Matthews,  27  N.  J.  L.   522 

106,   202,   237,    253 
Coscia    V.    Kyle,    15    Nev.    394  74 

Coskey    v.     Coryell,      2     "Whart 

(Pa.)    223  98 

Coss    V.    MacDonough,    111    Cal. 

662  54,    97,    255,    296 

Costello    V.    Dale,    1    Hun    489  99 

Cote    V.    Schoen,    38    W.    N.    C. 

382  57,    268 

Cote  Brilliant  Pressed  Brick 
Co.  V.  Sadring,  68  Mo.  App. 
15  179 


[References  are  to  sections.] 

27 


34 
163 


178 


154 
31 


31 


Cotes  V.  Carroll,  28  How.  Prac. 
436  296 

V.    Shorey,    8    Iowa    416 

16,    21,    22,    33 
V.      Smith,      31      How      Prac. 

146  296 

Cotton  V.  Holden,  1  MacArthur 

(D.   C.)    463  169 

Coughlan   v.    Longini,    77   Minn. 

514  94,    98,    117,    121 

Courtemanche      v.      Blackstone 
Val.  St.   Ry.  Co.,  170  Mass.  50 

36,    39 
Courtat   V.    Ehrhardt.    28   Wkly. 

Law   Bui.    (Ohio)    138  68 

Courtney    v.    Insurance    Co,    49 


130,    157 
Cal. 

195 
Pa 

267,"    268 


246 


292 
12 


234 


Fed.    309 
Covell    V.    "Washburn,     91 

560 
Coverdill      v.      Heath,      12 

Super  Ct.    15 
Cowan   V.   Griffith,    108   Cal.   224'    134 
V.         Pennsylvania        Plate- 
Glass    Co.,    184    Pa.    St. 
16  15,   114 

Cowdrick   v.    Morris,    9    Pa.    Co. 

Ct.    R.    312  12,   103 

Cowen    V.    Paddock,    137    N.    Y. 

188  35,    262 

Cowie    V.    Ahrenstedt,    1    Wash. 
St.    416  104, 

Cox     V.      Broderick,      4      E.      D. 
Smith    (N.    Y.)    721 
V.    Colles,   17   111.   App.    503 
V.   Flannagan   (N.  J.),  2  Atl. 
33  101, 

Craig  V.   Herzman,   9  N.  D.   140    6,  7 
V.   Smith,   37   N.  J.   Law   549      127 
Crandall   v.    Cooper,   62  Mo.   478 

162,   186 
V.   Lyon,   188   111.   86  115 

V.  Sorg,    198    111.    48  143 

Crane  v.  Genin,  60  N.  Y.  127      32,  66 
Crane    Co.    v.  -Epworth    Hotel, 
121   Mo.   App.   209  14.   15    120 

V.   Hanley,   23   Mo.  App.    540      200 
V.  Neel,    104   Mo.   App.    177  22 

Crawford      v.      Anderson,      129 
Ind.    117  45,    85,    148a 

V.   Blackman,    30   Kan.   527        127 
V.   Crockett,   55   Ind.    220 

45,   74,   216,   239,   250,   289 
V.  O'Connor,   73  N.  Y.   600  298 

V.    Powell,    101   Ind.   421  289 

Crawfordsville      v.       Barr,       45 
Ind.    258,    65    Ind.    367 
45,     85,     216,     229,     237,     239,     244 
V.    Boots,     76    Ind.    32 

104,   216,   217 
V.    Brundage,    57    Ind.    262 

56,    239 
V.    Irwin,    46    Ind.    438 

90,    104,    216,    242,    244,   289 
V.    Johnson,    51    Ind.    397 

67,   82,    104,    216,    217 
Cream  v.  McFee,  2  Miles    (Pa.) 

214  174 

Cream    City    Furniture    Co.    v. 

Squier,  2  Misc.  Rep.   438      119,  120 
Creasy    v.    Emanuel    Reformed 

Church,   1  Pa.   Super.  Ct.  372      260 
Cremin     v.     Byrnes,      4     E.     D. 
Smith    (N.    Y.)    756  205 


XXVlll 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Creswell        Iron        Vv'orks        v. 

O'Brien,   156  Pa.   172 
Crickmore   v.    Breckenridge,    51 

Ind.    294  45 

Crist      V.      Lang-horst,    5      Ohio 

Dec.    352  66 

Crocker     v.     Currier,     65     Wis. 

662  27,    130,    271 

Crombie  v.    Rosentock,   19   Abb. 

N.  C.    (N.  T.)   312  150,  294 

Cronk    v.    Whittaker,    1    E.    D. 

Smithi    (N.   T.)    647  204 

Cronkrigiit    v.    Thomson,     1    E;. 

D.    Smith    (N.    Y.)    661  252 

Crook    V.    Old     Point     Comfort 

Hotel    Co.,    54    Fed.    604  3 

Crooker    v.    Grant,    5    Tex.    Civ. 

App.    182  153 

Crooks   V.    Finney,    39    Ohio    St. 

57  81,   176 

Croskey   v.   Corey,   48    111.    442        274 
V.     Northwestern    Mfg.    Co., 

48    111.    481  162.    179.    274 

Cross    V.    Tscharnig.    27    Or.    49 

110,    249 
Crouch     V.     Moll,     55     Hun     (N. 

Y.)    603  183,    284 

Crowell  V.   Gilmore,    13  Cal.    54, 

18    Cal.    370  146,   158 

Crowley    v.    United    States    Fi- 
delity,   &c.,    Co.    (Wash.),    69 

P.    784  170,    185 

Crump   V.    Gill,    9    Phila,    117  149 

Crutcher    v.    Block    (Okla.),    91 

P     895  11 

Crvstal    V.    Flannelly,    2    E.    D. 

Smith   (N.  Y.)    583  187,   227 

Cudworth    v.     Bostwick,    69    N. 

H.    536  54,    67 

Cuer  V.    Ross,    49  Wis.    652      94,    122 
Cullers     V.      First     Nat.     Bank 

(Tex.)    29    S.    W.    72  150,    225 

Culmer    v.    Caine,    22    Utah    216 

102,    116,    122,    130,    247 
V.     Clift,     14    Utah     286 

114.    132.    254 

Culver   V.    Atwood.    170    111.    432      58 
V.    Elwell,    73    111.     536 

127,     134,     205,     273 
V.    Fleming.    61    111.    498  49 

V.  Lieberman,  69  N.  J.  L.  341 

So.    247 
V.    Schroth.    153    111.    437 

114,   122.   297 
Cumming  v.  Wright,  72  Ga.  767 

200 
Cummings    v.    Emslie.    49    Neb. 

485  161 

Cummins     v.     Vandeventer,    52 

Neb.    478  74 

Cunningham    v.    Barr,    45    Kan. 
158  99.  112,  120 

V.  Doyle,   5  Misc.   Rep.   219        185 
V.    Fischer    (Ky.),    48    S.    V^T. 

993  175 

V.     Hatch.     IS     N.     Y.     Supp. 

458  181 

V.     Jones,     3     E.      D.      Smith 

(N.     Y.)      650  64 

Curless   v.    Lewis,    46    Mo.   App. 

278  116 

Curlett     V.      Aaron,      6      Houst 

(Del.)    477  99 

Curnew  v.  Lee,  143  Mass.  105  12 


[References  are  to  sections. j 

269 


Curnow    v.    Happv    Valley,    &c., 

Min.  Co.,  68  Cal.   262  246 

Curran  v.  Smith,  37  111.  App.  69 

138,  200 
V.  Webbe,   97  111.  App.   525  34 

Current    River    Lumber    Co.    v. 

Cravens,    54  Mo.   App.   216      19,   21 
Currier  v.    Cummings,    40   N.   J. 

Eq.    145  141,    155,   234 

Curtin-Clark    Hardware    Co.    v. 
Churchill,    126    Mo.    App.    462 

141,   143 
Curtis    V.    Broadwell,    66    Iowa 
662  151,    162,    211 

V.     Sestanovich.     26    Or.     107 

94,    106,    110,    114,    112,    116 
Cushwa   V.    Improvement,    Etc., 

Assn.,  45  W.  Va.  490  156,  177 

Cusson  V.  Gemme,   19   R.  I.  507      195 
Cutcliff    V.     McAnally,     88     Ala. 

507  29,    33,    96 

Cutler   V.    McCormick,    48    Iowa 

406 
Cutter   V.    Kline,    35    N.    J.    Eq. 
534 
V.  Magaw,  23  Pa.   Co.   Ct.  R. 

475 
V.    Striegel,    4    Wash.    346 


66 
275 


124 

42 


D 


Pittsb. 


112 
271 


Dagg    V.    Thomas,      31 

Leg.    J.     (N.    S.)    210 
Dahlborg      v.      Wyzanski,      175 

Mass.     34  265, 

Dakin    v.    Lecklider,     10     Ohio 

C.   D.   308  26.   27,   44 

Daley  v.  Legate,   169   Mass.   257 

48,    57 
Dallas   V.    Brown,    60    Mo.    App. 

493  117 

V.    Loonie,    83    Tex.    291  10 

Dalles     Lumber,      &c.,      Co.     v. 

"^''asco    Woolen    Mfg.    Co..    3 

Or.    527  9,   134,   211 

Dallman    v.    Clasen,     116     Wis. 

113  58 

Dalrymple  v.   Ramsey,   45   N.  J. 

Eq.    494  11 

Dalton   V.    Tindoph,    87   Ind.    490      55 
Dame's   Appeal.    62   Pa.    417  11 

D'Andre     v.      Zimmermann,      17 

Misc.    Rep.    357  239,    296 

Daniel    v.    Weaver,      73     Tenn. 

392  11,    20 

Danziger    v.    Simonson,    116    N. 

Y.    329  131 

Darlington   v.   Eldridge.   88  Mo. 

App.     525  119,     123,     257 

Darlington  Lumber  Co.  v.  Har- 
ris   (Mo.),    80    S.    W.    688 

98,    103,    176,   261 
Darlington-Miller    Lumber    Co. 

V.  Lobitz   (Okla.)    46  Pac.   481 

9,   47 
Darrington     v.    Moore,    88     Me. 

569  131 

Darrow  v.  Morgan,  65  N.  Y.  333 

112.    131.    286 
Dart    V.    Fitch,    23    Hun    (N.    Y.) 

361  8,   131,   242 

Daschke    v.    Schellenberg,      124 

Mich.    16  244,    250 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


XXIX 


Davenport  v.  Persch,  17  Pa.  Co. 

Ct.  R.  423 
Davidson  v.   Campbell,   5  Mani- 
toba   250 
Davies-Henderson    Lumber    Co. 
V.    Gottschalk,    81    Cal.    641 
54,    74,    112,    128, 
Davis  V.  Alvord,  94  U.  S.  545 
V.    Arthur,    170    Mass.    449 
V.       Big-horn       Lumber       Co. 

(Ariz.),   S2   P.   980 
V.    Bilsland,    85    U.    S.     659 

158,   165 
V.    Bullard,    32    Kan.    234  95 

V.    Church.    1    Watts     &     S. 

fPa.)    240 
V.     Connecticut      Mut.      Life 

Ins.    Co.,    84    111.    508 
V.     Crookston     Waterworks, 

&c.,    Co.,    57   Minn.    402 
V.    Elliott,    7    Ind.    App.    246 

140,   148a 
V.    Farr,    13    Pa.    167  22 

V.     Fidelity    &    Deposit    Co., 

75    App.    Div.    518 
V.    Hines,     6    Ohio    St.     473 

81. 
V.      Humphrey,      112      Mass. 

309 
V.    John    Mouat   Lumber   Co., 
2    Colo.    App.    381      229, 
V.     Johnson,     4      Colo.      App. 

545 
V.  La  Crosse  Hospital  Assn. 

(Wis.),   99   N.   W.    351 

V.     Livingston,     29     Cal.     283 

4,    90,    108,    112, 

v.  MacDonough,   109  Cal.  547 

80, 

V.    McMillan,    13    Ind.     App. 

424  216,    244 

V.         Maysville         Creamery 
Assn.,    63    Mo.   App.    477 

30,    142 
V.    Nary,    2    Leg-.    Rec.    (Pa.) 

326 
V.    Owing-s,     2    Mo.    App.     R. 

847 
V.   Parsons,   157    Mass.    584 
V.    Ravenna    Creamery    Co., 

48    Neb.    471  30,    108 

V.    Rittenhouse     &     Embree 

Co..   92    111.   App.    341 
V.    Schuler,    38    Mo.    24 
V.    Stratton,   1    Phila,    289      9, 
V.    Vice,    15    Ind.    App.    117 
45,   142, 
Davis     &     Rankin      Bldg-.,      &c., 
Co.     V.     Colusa     Dairy    Assn., 
55   111.    App.    591 
Dawson    v.    Black,    148    111.    484 

94, 
V.    Harrington,    12    111.    300 
Day    V.    Chapman,    88    111.    App. 

358 
Dayton    v.    Minneapolis    Radia- 
tor &  Iron   Co.,    63   Minn.    48 
Deady    v.     Fink,    24    N.    Y.    St. 

734 
Dean,  In  re.,   83  Hun   413 
Dean    v.    Pyncheon,      3     Chand. 
(Wis.)    9        132,    140,   197,    282, 
V.    Wheeler,    2    Wis.    224 


[References  are  to  sections.'] 
Deane      Steam 


116 
41 


130 
162 
220 

106 


246 
26 


167 


165 
116 

27 
237 
250 
173 
127 

95 


110 


142 
177 


299 
220 
246 

224 


34 


215 
58 


122 
97 


187 
183 


283 
244 


Pump  Co.  V. 
Clark,  87  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
459 
Dearborn  Foundry  Co.  v.  Au- 
gustine, 5  Wash.  67 
Deardorf  v.  Everhartt,  74  Mo. 
37  53, 

v.   Roy,    50  Mo.   App.   70      85, 
Dearie   v.    Martin,    78    Pa.    55 

27,    99,    110,    240, 
Dearing  v.   Boss,    55   Misc.    Rep. 

58 
De    Arnaz    v.    Jaynes,    34    Pac. 

(Cal.)    223 
Deatherage    v.    Henderson,     43 
Kan.    684 
V.     Sheidley,     50    Mo.       App. 

490 
V.    Woods,    37    Kan.    59 

86,     106, 
Deblieux     v.     Recorder,     25    La. 

Ann.    61 
De    Camp    Lumber    Co.    v.    Tol- 

hurst,    99    Cal.    631 
Decker  v.  O'Brien,    1  App.   Div. 
81  272, 

Deegan    v.    Kilpatrick,    54    App. 

Div.    371 
Deeming   v.    Patterson,    10    Ind. 

251 
DeGive   v.   Meador,   51   Ga.   160 
Deitz  V.  Leete.  28  Mo.  App.  540 
De    Klyn    v.    Gould,    165    N.    Y. 
282  36, 

V.     Simpson,    34      App.      Div. 
(N.  Y.)    436  36, 

Delahay  v.  Goldie,   17  Kan.  263, 
Delauney    v.    Butler,    55    S.    W. 

(Tex.)      752 
De    Lorenzo    v.    Von    Raitz,    44 

App.    Div.    329 
Dell    V.    Marvin,    41    Fla.     221 

301, 
Delray     Lumber    Co.    v.      Keo- 

hane,    132    Mich.    IS 
Deming-Colburn    Co.    v.    Union 
Ass'n.,    151    Ind.    463 

148a,      216,    275, 
Auer,    55    Mo.    App. 


Dengler 

548 
Denison 

180 
Denison 


V.    Burrell,    119      Cal. 


Lumber    Co.    v.     Mil- 
burn    (Tex.),    107   S.   W.   1161 
Denmead     v.     Bank     of     Balti- 
more,   9    Md.    179 
Dennis   v.    Smith,    38   Minn.    494 
122,    191, 
v.  Walsh,  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  257 
37,    49,    107, 
V.    "Williamson,    2    Pa.    Dist. 
R.   181 
Dennistoun   v.   McAllister.    4   E. 
D.   Smith    (N.   Y.)    729      24,    49, 
Denver  Hardware  Co.  v.  Croke, 

4    Colo.    App.    530 
De    Ronde    v.    Olmsted,    5    Daly 

(N.    Y.)     398 
Derrickson    v.    Edwards,    29    N. 
J.    L.     468  14,     63,    72 

Dexshrlmer     v.      Maloney,      143 

Pa.    532 
Des      Moines      Sav.      Bank      v. 
Goode,    106    Iowa,    568 


207 

106 

126 
117 

248 

185 

296 

90 

11 
118 

67 
301 
277 

85 

216 
231 
210 

107 

106 
237 

77 
127 
302 

64 

280 

127 

57 

141 

155 

194 

262 

99 

271 

121 

26 

75 

57 

36 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  sections.'] 


De    Soto    Lumber    Co.    v.    Loeb, 


75    S.   W.    (Tenn.)    1043  234 

Develin    v.    Mack,    2    Daly    (N. 

Y.)     94  66,    209 

Devereux  v.  Taft.  20  S.  C.  555     160 
Devine      v.      Taylor,      4      C.      D. 

(Ohio)    248  44 

DeWald   v.   Woog,    158   Pa.,   497, 

499  12 

Dewey    v.    Fifield,    2    Wis.    73 

235,   274 
Dewing  v.  Wilbraham  Congre- 

g-ational    Soc,     79    Mass.    414 

58,   231 
De    Witt   V.    Smith,    63    Mo.    263 

103,    105 
Dey  V.  Anderson,  39  N.  J.  Law 

199  152 

Dickens   v.    Polk,    42   Neb.    267     287 
Dickenson    v.    Bolger,     55    Cal. 

285  117 

Dickey's    Appeal,    115    Pa.    73  12 

Dickinson     College    v.     Church, 

1    ^Watts   &   S.    (Pa.)    462  259 

Dickson    v.     Corbett,     10     Nev. 

439  72,    186,  202,   295 

Diddy   v.   Risser,    55   Iowa,    699      282 
Diemer    v.     Philadelphia     Ger- 
man    Protestant     Home,      19 

Pa.    Super    Ct.    225  57 

Dierks    v.    Walrod,      66      Iowa, 

354  26 

Dietrick   v.    Crabtree,    8    W.    N. 

C.    (Pa.)    418  27 

Dig-gs    V.    Green,    15    La.    416  149 

Dill  V.   Gaughan,    9   Kulp    (Pa.) 

384  123 

Diller   v.    Burger,    68    Pa.    432  98 

Dillon    V.    Hart,    25    Or.    49  112 

Dimmick   v.    Cook   Co.,    115    Pa. 

573  14 

Dingledine  v.  Hershman,  53  111. 

280  281 
Dinkins    v.    Bowers,      49      Miss. 

219  220 

Ditto   V.   Jackson,    3    Colo.   App. 

281  242 
Dixon   V.    Hyndman,    177    Mass. 

506  157 

V.   La  Farge,   1   E.   D.   Smith 

(N.   T.)    722  53,   296 

Doane  v.  Bever  (Kan.),  65  Pac. 
693  265 

V.     Clinton,     2     Utah,     417 

9,    114,    176 
Dobbs   V.    Enearl,    4   Wis.'    451  80 

Dobschuetz  v.   Holliday,    82    111. 

371  141,    187,    275 

Dobson     V.     Thurman,     30     Ky. 

Law    Rep.    1331  116,    120 

Dodge  V.  Hall,   168  Mass.   435 

150.    250,    255,    267 
V.    Romain,    18    Atl.     (N.    J.) 

114  1^9"? 

V.  Walsham,  16  R.  I.  704  '  86 
Doellner  v.  Rogers,  16  Mo.  340  234 
Dole     V.      Bangor     Auditorium 

Assn.,    94   Me.    532  188 

Doll    V.    Coogan,    168    N.    Y.    653 

24,    275 
Dollman    v.    Collier,    92     Tenn. 

660  234,    280 

Donaher    v.    Boston,    126    Mass. 

309  32 


Donahoo    v.    Scott,    12    Pa.    45 

85,    114,    118,    136 
Donahue   v.    Cromartie,    21    Cal. 

80  14 

Donahy  v.   Clapp,   66   Mass.   440 

4,    7,    9,    68 
Donaldson  v.  Holmes,  23  111.  86 

35,   104 
V.    O'Connor,    1    E.    D.    Smith 

(N.    Y.)     695  7 

Donnelly  v.  Adams,  127   Cal.   24     41 
V.    Johnes,    58    N.   J.    Eq.    442 

54,   55,   56,   110,   128,   151 
V.  Libby,  31  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 

259  252,   284 

Donovan    v.    Frazier,    15     App. 

Div.    521  176 

Doolittle  V.  Goodrich,  13  Nebr. 
296  54 

V.   Plenz,    16   Neb.   153 

84.    103,    112 
Dore   V.    Sellers,    27   Cal.    588  128 

Dorestan  v.   Krieg,  66  Wis.  604 

66,    98,    154 
Dorman     v.     Crozier,     14     Kan. 

224  120 

Dorsey  v.  Langworthy,  3  Iowa, 

341  32 

Dougherty   v.   Loebelenz,    9   Pa. 

Super.    Ct.    344  236,    243 

Doughty    V.     Devlin,     1      E.      D. 

Smith    (N.    Y.)    625      242,    249,    261 
Douglas  V.  McCord,  12  111.  App. 

278  127 

Douglass  V.  Zinck,   56  Mo.  388     189 
Douthitt      V.      MacClusky,       11 

Wash.    601  26 

Dowd    V.    Crow,    205    Pa.    214 

189    190 
V.    Dowd,     126    Mich.     649 

175,   179 
Dowdney  v.  McCollom,  59  N.  Y. 

367  1S3 

Downey  v.  Higgs,  41  Mo.  App. 
215  76 

V.   O'Donnell,   92   111.    559  297 

Downingtown  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Franklin  Paper  Mills,  63  N. 
J.   Law  32  267 

Doyle  V.  Munster,  27  111.  App. 
130  242 

V.    Wagner,    100    Minn.     380 

103      218 
Drake    v.    Green,    48    Kan.    534*      79 
V.    O'Donnell,    49   How.   Prac. 

(N.    Y.)    25  64.    127 

Drall    V.    Gordon,    51    Misc.    618 

67,   261 
Dreibelbis    v.    Seazholtz,    8    Pa. 

Co.    Ct.    R.    655  102 

Drennan  v.  New  York,  14  Misc. 

(N.  Y.)   112  242 

Dressel     v.      French,      7      How. 

Prac.    (N.    Y.)    350  24 

Drew   V.    Mason,    81   111.    498  12 

Drew   Glass    Co.    v.    Eagle   Mill 

Co.,    1    Kan.    App.    614  107 

Drexel  v.  Richards,  48  Neb. 
732,    70    Neb.    23,    50    Neb.    211 

67,    S3 
Driesbach   v.   Keller,    2   Pa.    77 

12,    100.   113 
Drinkhouse  v.   American   Brick 
&  Tile  Co.,  58  N.  J.  Law  432      123 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


XXXI 


[References  are  to  sections.] 


185 
151 


110 


97 
237 


Driscoll  V.   Hill,    93   Mass.    154       115 
Du   Bay   v.    Uline,    6   Wis.    588        273 
Dubois    V.    Hermance,    56    N.    Y. 
573 
V.    Wilson,    21    Mo.    213 
Duck  V.  O'Rourke,   19  W.  N.  C. 

497 
Duckwall  V.  Jones,  156  Ind.  682 

76,    200,   205,    216,   254,   271 

Dudley  v.   Jones,  77   Tex.   69      64,   65 

Duff  V.  Hoffman,   63   Pa.   191  58 

V.    Snider,    54   Miss.    245  250 

Duffy   V.    Baker,    17   Abb.   N.    C. 

(N.    Y.)    357 

V.    Brady,    4    A'bb.    Prac.    (N. 

Y.)     432  104, 

Dugan      V.      Brophv,      55     How. 

Prac.    (N.   Y.)    121  81,   111 

V.    Higg-s,    43    Mo.    App.    161      204 

V.    Scott,     37    Mo.    App.     663 

156,    251 
Dugan   Cut   Stone   Co.   v.    Gray, 

114    Mo.     497  13,     122 

Duhrkop     v.      White,     15    App. 

Div.    (N.    Y.)    613  48 

Duigan    v.     Montana    Club,    16 

Mont.    189  58,    295,    296 

Dunavant    v.    Caldwell,    &c.,    R. 

Co.,    122    N.    C.    999  158 

Dunbar  v.    Washington    Foun- 
dry,  &c.,   Co.,   210  Pa.   58  298 
Duncan     v.     Aaron,      6      Houst. 
(Del.)    566                             22.    91,    242 
V.   Bateman,   23   Ark.   327      43,   47 
Dungan    v.      Dollman,     64      Ind. 

327  194 

Dunham    v.     Milhous,    70     Ala. 

596  58 

Dunklee    v.    Crane,    103    Mass. 

470  149,   157 

Dunlop    V.     Kennedy,    102    Cal. 

443.  32,    34,    41,    67,    68,    195 

Dunn   V.    Cutter,   19   Pa.   Co.   Ct. 
R.    24 
V.   Kanmacher,   26  O.   S.   497 
V.    McKee,    37    Tenn.    657 
V.    Rankin,    27    Ohio    St.    132 
59,     66,     92, 
Dunning     v.     Clark,     2     E.     D. 
Smith    (N.    Y.)    535 
V.    Stovall,    30    Ga.    444      213,    250 
Dunphy  v.   Riddle,   86   111.   22  213 

Dunwell     v.     Bidwell,     S     Minn. 

34  ,  6 

Durling  v.   Gould,   83   Me.   137    2,   100 
Duross      V.    Broderick,    78      Mo. 

App.    Rep'r.    223  8,    31 

Dusick       V.       Meiseltaach,        118 
Wis.   240 

76,  77,  103,  260,  287,  298 
Dust  V.  Prudom,  95  Cal.  646  65 
Dustin    V.    Crosby,    75    Me.    75  24 

V.    Schroeder,    100    111.    App. 
118 
Dutro  V.  Wilson,    4   O.    S.   101 
Dutton  V.  Herman,  22  Mo.  App. 
458 
V.    New    England    Mut.    Fire 
Ins.   Co.,   29  N.   H.   153 
Dwyer  v.    Salt   Lake   City   Cop- 
per Manuf  g  Co..   14  Utah   339 
Dwyer   Brick   Works   v.    Flana- 
gan,   87    Mo.    App.    340  77, 
Dye  V.  Forbes,  34  Minn.   13 


111 

295 
97 

127 

183 


187 
141 


174 
179 


173 


109 

48 


Dymund      v.    Bruhns,    101      111. 
App.    425  34,   174 

E 


Bry- 


Des 
Co., 


D. 


Eagle    Gold    Min.    Co.    v 

arly,    28    Colo.    262 
Eagle      Iron      Works      v. 

Moines      Suburban      Ry. 

101    Iowa   289 
Eagleson    v.     Clark,     2      E 

Smith    (N.    Y.)    644 
Earle   v.  Willets,   56   N.  J.   Law 

334 
Early  v.   Burt,    68   Iowa,    716 
East   V.    Ferguson,    59    Ind.    169 
176, 
Eastern        Arkansas        Hedge- 
Fence  Co.  V.  Tanner,   67  Ark. 

156 
Eastern    Ohio    Oil    Co.    v.    Mc- 

Elvoy,    75    Kan.    515 
Easthampton   Lumber,    &c.,    Co. 

V.    Worthington,     186     N.      Y. 

581  49, 

Eastman   v.   Newman,   59   N.   H. 

581 
Eastmore   v.    Bunkley,    113    Ga. 

637 
Easton    v.    Brown,     170     Mass. 

311 
East    Side    Bank    v.    Columbus 

Tanning    Co.,    15    Pa.    Co.    Ct. 

357 
East    Stroudsburg   Lumber    Co. 

V.    Gill,    187    Pa.    St.    24 
V.    Ottenheimer,    4    Pa.    Dist. 
R.    730 
Eaton   V.    Maletesta,    92   Cal.    75 
Eau    Claire    &c.    Lumber    Co.    v. 

Gray,    81    Mo.    App.    337 
V.    Wright,    81    Mo.    App.    535 
Eccles    Lumber    Co.    v.    Martin, 

31   Utah    241  8,    26,    117, 

Eclipse     Steam       Mfg.     Co.       v. 

Nichols,    1    Utah,    252 
Eddins     v.     Tweddle,     35 

107 
Edelkamm    v.    Comlv,    12 

Co.    Ct.    371 
Edgar  v.  Salisbury,  17  Mo.   271 

16, 
Edleman  v.   Kidd,   65  Wis.   18 
Bdler    v.     Clark,     51    Fed.     117 
Edmonds    v.    Tiernan,    21    S.    C. 

R.     (Can.)     406 
Edwards    v.    Derrickson,    28    N. 

J.     Law     39  85,     95,     104. 

114,    132, 

V.   Edwards,   24  Ohio   St.    402 

44,   136, 

Edwards     &c.     Lumber     Co.     v. 

Mosher,    88   "Wis.    672 
El     Reno     Electric     &c.     Co.     v. 

Jennison,    5   Okla.    759  119, 

123,     269, 

Egan  V.  Laemmle,  5  Misc.  Rep. 

224 
V.    Menard,    32    Minn.    273 

Eggert  &  Flater  v.  Snoke,  122 
Iowa    582  115, 

Egolf  V.  Casselberry,  14  Pa. 
Co.    Ct.     R.     87  119. 

Ehdin  v.  Murphy,  170  111.  399 
110. 


Fla. 
Pa. 


236 

274 

301 

55 
138 

177 

15 
11 

261 

76 

257 

155 

56 

57 

234 
255 

121 
205 

132 
94 

131 

15 

86 
241 

155 

176 

107 
225 

137 

27 

120 
271 

212 

287 

150 
131 

115 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


Ehlers   v.    Elder,    51    Miss.    495 

177,  198 
Ehrman    v.    Kendrlck,     58     Ky. 

146  188 

Eichleay    v.    Wilson,    29    Pittsb. 

Leg-.    J.    (N.    S.)    50  13 

Eichler     v.     Warner,     46     Misc. 

Rep.  246  35 

Einstein  v.  Jamison,   95  Pa.   407      32 
Eisenbeis  v.  Wakeman,  3  Wash 

St.    534  22 

Eisendrath      Co.      v.    Gebhardt, 

124   111.  App.  325  6„  8,   32,      49 

94  213  250 
Elder  v.  Spinks,  53  Cal.  293  '  253 
Electric   Light   Co.    v.    Gas    Co., 

99  Tenn.  371  179 

Eller    V.      Cambridge       Springs 

Co.,    18    Pa.    Super.    Ct.    44  96 

Elllce    V.    Paul,    2    Phila.    102  114 

EUinwood      v.      Worcester,    154 

Mass.    590  117 

Elliott   V.    Ivers,    6    Nev.    287  204 

Ellis  V.  Brisacher,   8  Utah  108     188 
Ellison    V.   Jackson   Water    Co., 

12   Cal.    542  12 

Elston    V.    Jury,    3    Lack.    Jour. 

107  14 

Elwell    V.    Morrow,     (Utah)     78 

P.   605  130,   175- 

Elwood    V.    Mock,    40    Ind.    App. 

685  45,   175,   269 

Ely  V.   Wren.    90   Pa.    148  103 

Emack    v.    Campbell,     14    App. 

D.    C.    186  75,   116,   247 

V.    Rusenberger,    8    App.    D. 

C.    249  292 

Emerson  v.  Gainey,  26  Fla.  133 

105  295 
Emery  v.  Hertig-,  60  Minn.  54  '  21 
Emmet    v.    Rotary    Mill    Co.,    2 

Minn.    286  200,   253 

Empire  Land    etc.    Co.    v.    Eng-- 

ley,     18    Clo.     388  26,      28 

Emslie,  In  re,   98   F.   716  112 

Emslie,  In  re,  102  Fed.  291 

18,  189,  190 
Endy    v.    Ogrydziak,    10    Kulp, 

(Pa.)    102  107,   113 

Engelhardt   Co.   v.   Benjamin,    5 

App.   Div.   475  13 

Engfer   v.    Roemer,    71    "W'is.    11 

39,      40 
Englebrecht      v.      Rickert,      14 

Minn.    140  248 

Engleman    v.     Graves,     47     Mo. 

348  134 

Eng-lish       V.     Foote,     16       Miss. 

444  139,   163 

V.    Lee.    63    Hun,    572  145,   167 

V.    Warren,     (N.    J.)     54       A. 

860  56,      66 

Ennis  v.   Eden  Mills  Paper   Co. 

65    N.    J.    Law    577  220 

Epeneter        v.  Montgomery 

County.     98     Iowa     159  57,      68 

Epley   V.    Scherer,    5    Colo.    536 

127,    242 

Equitable  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Slye, 
45    Iowa   615  138,   156 

Equitable  Loan  etc.  Ass'n.  v. 
Lvon  etc.  Co.,  72  111.  App. 
489  178 


Erdman  v.  Moore,  58  N.  J.  Law 

445  164 

Erickson    v.    Brandt,    53    Minn. 

10  170 
Ermul  V.  Kullok,  3  Kan.  499  26 
Erust    V.    Cummings,    55       Cal. 

179  172 

Erving  v.  Phelps  &c.  Wind- 
mill Co.,  52  Kan.  787  231 
Erwin  v.  Acker,  126  Ind.  133  155 
Esslinger   v.    Huebner,    22   Wis. 

632  20,      22 

Estabrook    v.     Riley,     81    Iowa 

479  138 

Este    V.    Penna.    R.    R.    Co.,    13 

Dist.    451  100,   124 

Estey    V.     Hallack    &    Howard 

Lumber      Co.,    4    Colo.      App. 

165  229 

Ettridg-e    v.    Bassett,    136    Mass. 

314  25 

Eufaula    Water    Co.    v.    Addy- 

ston,    89    Ala.    552  22 

Eureka  Sandstone  Co.  v.  Long, 

11  "Wash.  161  185 
Evans   v.    Beddingfleld,    106   Ga. 

755  12 

V.    Cunningham,     6    Pa.    Co. 
Ct.    156  35,   246 

V.    Grogan,    153    Pa.    121  57 

V.    Judson,    120   Cal.    282      36,   141 
V.    Lower,    (N.    J.)    58    A.   294 

18,     20,     76,     122,   146 
V.    Montgomery,    4   Watts    & 

S.      (Pa.)      218  139 

V.    Sanford,    65   Minn.    271 

103,    104 
V.   Tripp,    35   Iowa  371 

80,    228,   283 
V.    Young,    10    Colo.    316  141 

Ewing    V.    Allen,    99    Iowa    381, 
382  135 

V.     Barras,     4    Watts       &     S. 

(Pa.)     467  103,   267 

V.    Fiedler,    30   111.   App.    202        49 
V.    Folsom,    67    Iowa    65  57 

V.   Stockwell,   106   Iowa  26       121 


Faber  v.  Muir,    (Tex.)    64   S.  W. 

938  27 

Fagan   v.  Bogle,  65  Tex.  324 

9,    32,  187 
Fahn   v.   Bleckley.   55   Ga.    81  281 

Fahnestock    v.    Wilson,    95    Pa. 

301  123 

Fairbairn    v.    Moodv,    116    Mich. 

61  90,    94.    121,   191 

Fairbanks  v.  Crescent  Elevator 

Co..    52   Mo.    App.    637  103 

Fairhaven   Land   Co.   v.  Jordan, 

5    Wash.    729  58,    109,   111 

112.  115.  119.  121,  167,  262 
Fakins  v.  Frank.  21  Mont.  192  179 
Falconer   v.    Cochran,    68    Minn. 

405  131 

V.    Frazier,    15    Miss.    235 

233,   251 
Falkner    v.     Colshear,     39     Ind. 

201  82,   86,   284 

Fall    V.    Nichols,     (Tex.)     97    S. 

W.    145  64 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

Fallihee    v.    Wilmayer,    9    S.    D. 

479  142 

Panning-    v.     Krapfi,     68       Iowa 

244  280 

Farg-o    V.    Hamlin,    5    N.    Y.    St. 

297  299 

Farley     v.     Cammann,     43     Mo. 

App.    168  271 

Farman         v.       Ratcliff,       "Wils. 

(Ind.)    145  178 

Farmer  v.  St.  Croix  Power  Co., 

117    Wis.     76  58 

Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Cincinnati  etc.  R.  Co.,  10 
Oliio    Dec.    481  158 

Farmers'    etc.    Bank    v.    Taylor, 
(Tex.)    40   S.   TV.   876     79,   157,   179 
V.    Watson,    39    W.    \a.    342      228 
V.  Winslow,  3  Minn.   86 

158,   179 
Farmers'  Co.  v.  Canada  Ry.  Co.. 

127   Ind.   250  216 

Farmilo  v.   Stiles,   52  Hun.   450      262 
Farnham    v.    Davis,    79   Me.    282 

99,   131 
V.    Riciiardson,    91    Me.    559 

97,    157 
Farrell     v.     Lafayete     etc.     Co., 
12    Ind.    App.    326  45,    249,    292 

V.     Palestine    Loan       Ass'n., 
(Tex.)    30    S.    W.    914  79 

Fassett   v.    Traver,    20    Ohio    St. 

540  147 

Fatliam,  etc.  Mill  v.  Christo- 
pel,     60     Mo.     App.     106  31 

V.    Ritter,    33    Mo.    App.    404     108 
Fatout    V.    School    Com'rs.,    102 

Ind.    223  10 

Faulkner    v.    Rellly,    1      Phila. 

(Pa.)    234  113 

Faville     v.     Hadcock,     39     Mi.'sc. 

Rep.    397  197 

Fay   V.   Adams,    8    Mo.    App.    566   235 
V.     Muhlker,     1     Misc.     Rep. 

321  ^       97 

V.    Orison,    60    Iowa    136  67 

Fehling-    v.    Goings,    (N.    J.)    58 
_A.     642  58,     77,    115 

FeiKe  V.  Railway,  5  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.    640  147 

V.   Railway,  7  Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 

652  44     129 

Feldner    v.    Voight,    1    Wkly.    l! 

Bull.     116  69 

Felg-enhauer  v.   Haas,   123   App. 

Div.     75  111,    117 

Fell     V.     McMannus,     (N.    J.)     1 

Atl.    747  66 

Felton    V.    Minot,    89    Mass.    412     32 
Fenner   v.    Real    Est.    Trust    Co. 

of   Phila.,    13    Dist.    (Pa.)    47      110 
Fergestad  v.  Giertsen,  46  Minn. 

369  270 

•Fergus  v.  Chicago  Sash  &  Door 

Co.,     64     111.    App.    364  264 

Ferguson  v.  Ashbell,  53  Tex. 
245  117 

V.   Burk,    4    E.   D.    Smith.    (N. 

Y.)    760  65 

V.    Miller,    6    Cal.    402  156 

V.    Neilson,    17    R.    I.    81  10 

V.  Stephenson-Brown  Lum- 
ber Co.,  (Okla.)  77  Pac. 
184  32,   117 


to  Sectiotis.] 

Ferguson    v.    Vollum,    1    Phila. 
(Pa.)    181  109, 

Fetter    v.    Wilson,    51    Ky.    90 
^  25, 

Fettrich      v.      Totten,      2      Abb. 

Prac.    (N.    S.)    (N.    Y.)    264 
Ficklin     v.     McCarty,     54     Tex. 

370 
Fidelity    Ins.    etc.    Co.    v.    Shen- 
andoah  Iron   Co.,   42   Fed    372 
Fidelity    Loan    &    Trust    Co.    v 

Dennis,    93    Va.    504 
Fidelity     Mut.     Life     Ass'n.     v 

Jackson,    163    Pa.    208 
Field     V.    Oberteuffer,     2    Phila 
(Pa.)    271 

V.        Consolidated        Mineral 
Water  Co.,   25   R.   I.   319 
Fields   V.  Daisy   Gold   Min.   Co., 
25    Utah    76  197 

Filberl    v.    Davis,    4    Ohio    Dec' 
^.f96  4i,    112: 

1<  iler    V.     Empire    Lumber     Co 

91    Ga.    657 
Filston    Farm    Co.    v.     Hender- 
son,   (Md.)    67    A.    228  l:v> 
Finane    v.    Las    Vegas    Hotel    & 
Improvement     Co.,     3     N.     M. 
256                                                   119 
Finch    V.    Redding,    43    Ky.    87    ' 
9. -59 
V.    Turner,    21    Colo.    287    "" 
Fmck  etc.  Lumber  Co.  v.   M.^j- 
ler,    (Ky.)    43    S.    W.    4.)3,    761' 
^                                                           1 '  i' 
Findlay  v.  Roberts,  19  Ga.  163  ' 
Finger    v.    Hunter,    130      N     C 
529  iQ 
Fink   v.    Hanegan,    51    Mo.    280 ' 

v.   Remick,   33  Mo.  App.   62  1 
^.    ,  272,    277, 

Fmlayson    v.    Biebighauser,    51 
Minn.    202 
V.  .Crooks,    47    Minn.    74 

164,    168,    197, 
Finley's    Appeal,    67    Pa.     453 
Finley    v.    West,     51    Mo.    App. 

569 
Finn    v.    Connell,    2    Lack.    Leg 

N.    (Pa.)    118 
First    Baptist    Church 

drews,    87    111.    172 
First     Municipality     v. 
La.     Ann.     121 
V.    Hall,    2    La.   Ann 
First    Nat.    Bank    v.    Campbell, 
(Tex.)    58    S.    "W.    628  20, 

V.    Elmore,    52    Iowa    541 

162, 
V.    Hilliboe.     (N.    D.) 

W^     1085 
V.     Malheur    Countv, 

45     Pac.     781 
V.    Perris    Irrigation 

107    Cal.    55        18,    66,    75; 
V.    Redman,   57   Me.    405 
First    Presbyterian    Church 
Santy.    52    Kan.    462 
Firth    V.    Rehfeldt,    164    N. 

588 

Fischer  v.  Anslyn,  30  Mo.  App. 
316  31,  140, 

V.  Hanna,  8  Colo.  App.  471 
16,  211, 


V.  An- 

Bell,  4 

20, 

549 


114  N. 
(Ore.) 
Dist., 


96, 
Y. 
13, 


276 
138 
124 

67 
155 
156 

57 
104 

16 
130 
143 

96 
134 

212 

2i;i 
284 

130 
132 

212 

224 

278 

107 
146 

228 
101 

120 

246 

277 

54 
33 

167 

199 

68 

10 

292 
154 

112 

178 

162 

255 


XXXIV 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

Fischer    v.    Hussey,    32    N.    Y. 
Supp.  762 
V.    Jordan,    169    N.    Y.    615 

35,  205 

Fish    V.    McCarthy,    96  Cal.    484     30 

V.    Young,    127    Wis.    149   15,   267 

Fisher  v.   Jordon,    54   App.    Div. 

621  35 

V.    Rush,    71    Pa.    40  27 

V.    Tomlinson,    40    Ore.    Ill        28 

Fiske  V.  Rogers,  60  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.    418  112 

Fisler    v.    Voight,    5    Ohio    Dec 

1  91 

Fister  V.  Kline,  1  Woodw.  Dec. 

(Pa.)     457  246 

Fitch    V.    Baker,    23    Conn.    563        85 
V.   Hewitt,    32   Ore.    396 

19.    92,    95,    121,    299 
V.     McDonald,     91     111.     App. 

543  34 

Fitzgerald    v.    Thomas,    61    Mo. 

499  85 

V.    Trustees,    1    Mich.    243  165 

V.    Walsh,    107   Wis.    92      129,   261 

Fitzgibbon    v.    Green,    1    T\^kly. 

Law    Bui.    110  68,      69 

Fitzpatric    v.    Allen,    80    Pa.    St. 

292  136 

Fltzpatrick  v.  Boylan,  57  N.  Y. 
433  7,   131 

V.    Thomas,    61    Mo.    512 

82,    85,   251 
Flack      V.       Jeffrey,    X,       Man. 

(Can.)    514  113 

Flahertv    v.    Atlantic      Lumber 

Co.,  58  N.  J.  Eq.  467  76,   294 

Flanagan    v.    O'Connell,    88    Mo. 

App.    1  85,    211,   265 

Flandreau     v.     White,     18     Cal. 

630  220 

Flannerv       v.       Rohrmayer,     49 

Conn.    27  11,    37,    140 

Fleming  v.  Bumgardner.  29 
Ind.    424  130,    148a,   150 

V.       Prudential       Ins.       Co., 

(Colo.)    73   P.   752  15 

Flenniken    v.    Liscoe,    64    Minn. 

269  177 

Fletcher  v.  Kelly,  88  Iowa, 
475  151.   161 

V.     Sandusky,     26     Ky.    Law 

Rep.    1232  261 

V.    Stedman,    159    Mass.    124        27 
Flinn  v.  Graff,  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.   R. 

533  110 

Flint     V.     Raymond,     41     Conn. 

510  95,      97 

Flint  etc.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Doug- 
lass   Sugar    Co.,    54    Kan.    455 

129,  158 
Floete  V.  Brown,   104  Iowa   154 

142,  150 
Florance  v.  Mercier,  2  La.  487  41 
Florence     Bldg.     etc.     Ass'n.     v. 

Schall.     107     Ala.     531  120,   269 

Florence  Gas,  Electric  Light 
&  Power  Co.  v.  Hanby,  101 
Ala.    15  7 

Florin    v.   Mclntire,    14    Pa.    Co. 

Ct.     R.     127  13 

Florman  v.  School  Dist.,  6  Colo. 
App.   319  2,      10 


to  Sections.'] 

Flovd  V.  Rathledge,  41  111.  App. 

370  208 

Foeller  v.   Voight,    5   Ohio   Dec. 

349  68 

Foerder    v.    Wesner,    56      Iowa 

157  34 

Fogartv    v.    Wick,    8    Daly    (N. 

Y.)     166  100,   284 

Foley    V.    Coon.     (Colo.)     93    P. 
13  257     261 

V.  Gough,  4  E.  D.  Smith, '(X.' 
Y.)     724  119 

Foote  V.   Kendall.   113   Ga.   946     261 
Forbes        v.        Mosquito      Fleet 
Yacht    Club,    175    Mass.    432  26 

V.  AYillamette  Falls  Electric 

Co.,    19    Ore.    61      12,   14,   126 
Ford    V.    .Springer    Land    Ass'n., 
8  N.   M.   37  57,   104,   106,   111 

115,    134,    284,    296 
V.    Wilson,   85   Ga.    109 

110,    179,   207 
Ford    Gold    Min.    Co.    v.    Lang- 
ford.    1    Colo.    62  247 
Fordhams'   Appeal,    78   Pa.    120      163 
Forest  Grove   Door   &  Lumber- 
ing   Co.     V.     McPherson,       31 
Ore.    586  261 
Fornian    v.       St.    Germain,       81 

Minn.    26  58 

Forrester   v.   Preston,   2   Pittsb. 

R.    298     (Pa.)  31 

Forster   Lumber    Co.    v.    Atkin- 
son  Co.,    94   "Wis.    578  57,      49 
Foshay   v.    Robinson,   137   N.    Y. 

134  65 

Foss  V.   Desjardins,   98   Me.    539 

94,   213 
Fossett  V.  Rock  Island  Lumber 

&   Mfg.    Co.,    76    Kan.    428  209 

Foster   v.   Cox,    123   Mass.   45  32 

V.    Dohle.    17    Neb.    631  21 

V.     Fowler,     60    Pa.     27  10 

v.   Gaston,   123   Ind.   96  172 

V.    Montanye,    7    Kulp,    (Pa.) 

14  102 

V.     Poillon,     2     E.     D.    Smith 

(N.   Y.)    556  237 

V.    Rudderow,    (N.   J.)    3   Atl. 

694  66,    195 

V.    Schneider,    50   Hun.    151        110 
V.    Skidmore,    1    E.    D.   Smith 

(X.    Y.)    719  230,   249 

V.    Stone's    Heirs,    37    Mass. 

542  79 

V.     Sv.-aback,     58     111.       App. 

581  57,   128 

V.   Tierney,   91  Iowa   253  16 

V.    Wulfing.    20    Mo.    App.    85 

100,   229 
Fowler  v.    Bailley,   14   T\'is.    125 

219.   225 
V.    Pompellv,    25    Ky.      Law 

Rep.    615  17' 

Fourcher    v.    Day,    6    La.    Ann. 

60  68 

Fourth  Avenue  Baptist  Church 

V.    Schreiner,   88   Pa.   124  107 

Fourth      Baptist      Church        v. 

Trout    28    Pa.    153  114 

Foushee  v.  Grigsby,  75  Ky.  75  16 
Foust  V.  Wilson.  22  Tenn.  31  197 
Foutty  V.  Poar,    35   W.  Va.    70     248 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Fox  V.  Davidson,  111  App.   Div. 

174  126 

Fox  V.   Kidd,   77   N.  Y.    489  131 

V.    Rucker,    30    Ga.    525  43 

V.   Wunkei-,   18  Ohio  Cir.   Ct. 

R.    610  18,    44,   211 

France  v.  Woolston,  4  Houst. 
(Del.)    557 

12,    99,    104,    113,    114,   116 
Francis    v.     Sayles,     101    Mass. 
435  27 

V.    Wernwag,    12   Montg.    Co. 
Law     Rep'r,     (Pa.)     104 

109,   113 
Frank  v.  Jenkins,    11  Wash.   611 

150 
Franklin    Bank      v.    Cincinnati, 

.10   Ohio   Dec.    545        44,    66,   81      96 
Franklin       Fire       Ins.       Co.       v. 

Coates,    14    Md.    285  131 

Franklin   Sav.   Bank   v.   Taylor, 

131    111.    376  11 

Frankovitz   v.    Smith,    34    Minn. 

403  98,    239 

Frazer  v.   Barlow,    63    Cal.    71        249 
Frazier   v.    McGuckin,    58    N.    Y. 

Super.    Ct.    71  253 

Fredericks  v.  Goodman  St. 
Homestead  Ass'n.,  75  Hun. 
612  13,      66 

Frederickson      v.    Riebsam,    72 

Wis.    587  249 

Freedman     v.     Sandkop,     53     N. 

J.    Eq.    243  55 

Freeman  v.  Arnold,  39  111.  App. 

216  129 

V.   Cram,    3   N.   Y.    305  131 

V.   Getchell,    27   Minn.    516  186 

V.    Gilpin,    7    Leg.    Int.    (Pa.) 

11  12,      43 

V.    Rinaker,    185    III.     172 

16,      34 
Freese  v.  Avery,  69  N.  Y.  Supp. 

150  221,   236 

Freeto    v.    Houghton,    58    N.    H. 

100  219 

Freiboth   v.   Mann,   70   111.   523        274 
French    v.    Bauer,     134      N.    Y. 
548  66 

V.    Bauer,    16    Daly    (N.    Y.) 

309  23,    66,   297 

V.   Hussey,   159   Mass.    206 

7,    56,   111 
Fresno    Loan    &    Savings    Bank 
V.     Husted,     (Cal.)     49     Pac. 
194  11 

Frick    V.    Claddings,    30      Leg. 

Int.     (Pa.)     321  124 

Fried  v.  Blanchard,  58  111.  App. 

622  114,    135,   13(5 

Friedlaender      v.    McCann,      91 

111.   App.    415  103,   136 

Friedman    v.    Roderick,    20    111. 

App.    622  167 

Friend    v.     Ralston,    35    Wash. 

422  168 

Frolich  v.  Beecher,  11  Detroit 
Leg.    N.     (Mich.)     835  77 

v.    Carroll,    127    Mich. 
561  31,    49,      90 

Front  Rank  Steel-Range  Co.  v. 

Jeffers,    79    Mo.    App.    174  58 

Frost    v.    Clark,    82     Iowa    298 

155,   196 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 

Falgetter,    52 


Frost 
692 


Nebr. 
57,  286 

V.    Ilsley,    54    Me.    345        2,   6,   153 
v.    Rawson,    91    Iowa    553  90 

V.  St.  Paul  Banking  etc.  Co., 

57    Minn.    325  296 

Frudden    Lumber    Co.    v.    Kin- 
nan,    117    Iowa    93  22,    58,   261 
Fruin-Bambrick    Const.    Co.    v. 

Jones,    60    Mo.    App.    1  76 

Fudickar     v.     Monroe     Athletic 

Club,    49   La.   Ann.    1457  175 

Fulkerson   v.   Kilgore,   10  Okla. 

655  214 

Fuilenwider    v.    Longmoor,     73 
^Tex.    480  58,   242 

Fuller  V.  Detroit  Loan  &  Build- 
ing Ass'n.,   119   Mich.    71  53 
V.    Grim,    30    Pittsb.    Leg.    J 

(N.    S.)     (Pa.)    83  102 

V.   Pauley,   48  Neb.   138  143 

V.  Ryan.   (Wash.)   87  P.  485       21 
Fullerton    v.    Leonard,    3    S.    D 

„  V,^   ,         ^  120,   136 
Fullerton    Lumber    Co.    v.  Cal- 
houn.   89    Mo.    App.    209  169 
v.    Gates,    89    Mo.    App.  201 

T-    ,,  T,  184,   211 

Fullner   v.    Proust,    155    Pa.    275      32 
Fulton   V.   Parlett,    (Md.)    64   A 
^  5S  90,    103,    112,    134.   135 

Fulton  Iron  W^orks  v.  North 
Centre  Creek  Mining  etc.  Co  , 
80    Mo.    265  98 

Fuquay     v.     Stickney,     41     Cal 

583  161 

Furguson    v.    Ellis,    25       Tenn. 
^  268  213 

Furman     v.     Masson,     6     Phila. 


(Pa.)     222 


267 


Futch   V.    Adams,    (Fla.)    36    So. 
5'o  56,   212 


Gaas  V.   Souther,    167   N.   Y    604 

„    ^,      ,  167,  235,  225 

Gable    In   re.,    59    Me.    455  150 

V.  Parry,   13  Pa.   181  209 
V.       Preachers'    Fund       Soc, 

59    Md.    455  143 

Gabler  In  re.,  57  Misc.  Rep.  148  131 

V.    Childers,    38    Ore.    200  155 
Galbreath  v.  Davidson,   25  Ark 


490 


12,      24 


Gale  V.  Blaikie,   126  Mass.   274 

129    Mass.    206  96,   150 

Galland      v.       Schroeder,     (Pa  ) 
12    Atl.    866  267 

Gallick  v.  Engelhardt,   36  Misc. 
(N.    Y.)    260 

Galveston 


284 


Exhibition       Ass'n. 
v.    Perkins,    80    Tex.    62  27 

Galvon    v.     Ketchen,    85    Tenn. 

55  139 

Gamble   v.   Voll,    15    Cal.   507 

276,   281 
Gambling   v.    Haight,    58    N.    Y. 
623  250 

V.    Haight,    59   N.    Y.    354  174 

V.  Haight.  14  Abb.  Prac.   (N. 

S.)     (N.    Y.)     398  250 

Ganahl   v   Weir,   130   Cal.    237 

74,    171,   253 


XXXVl 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


Gannon    v.    Central    Presbyter- 
ian   Church,    173    Pa.    243  171 
V.    Shepard,    156    Mass.    355        298 
Gantner    v.     Kemper,     58       Mo. 

567  194 

Garbian    v.    McGee,    7    Pa.    Co. 

Ct.   R.   498  131 

Garden    City    Banking    etc.    Co. 

V.   Grabe,   108  111.  App.  453  35 

Garden    City    Co.    v.    Schnugg, 

39    Misc.    Rep.    840  195 

Gardner  v.  Hall,  29  111.  277  175 

V.    Leek,    52    Minn.    522 

16,    85,   157 
Garing-    v.     Hunt,     27     Ont.     R. 

149  11,   12,   26,      43 

Garland   v.   Van   Rensselaer,    71 

Hun    2  27,   185 

Garlichs    v.    Donnelly,    42    Neb. 

57  106,    110,   113 

Garner  v.  Van  Patten,   20  Utah 

342  76 

Garnett    v.    Berry,    3    Mo.    App. 

197  25,   31,      40 

Garrett    v.    Adams,    (Tenn.)    39 
S.   W.   730  162,    175,   177 

V.    Stevenson,    8    111.    261 

140,    260,    265,    269 
Garretson      v.    Appleton      Mfg. 

Co.,    61    111.    App.    443  201 

Garrison    v.    Hawkins    Lumber 
Co.,    Ill    Ala.    308         116,    218,   255 
V.    Mooney,   9   Daly    (N.     Y.) 
218  67 

Gaskell    v.    Beard,    58    Hun    101 

9,    121,   122 
V.    Davis,    63    Ga.    645 

27,    138,     143,   258 
V.    Moore,    4    Cal.    233        153,   155 
V.    Trainer,    3    Cal.    334      186,   187 
Gashe   v.   Ohio  Lumber   &   Mfg. 
Co.,   31   Wkly.   Law  Bui.    189 

14,     44,   138 
Gass    V.    Souther,    46    App.    Div. 

256  66,    67,    101,   225 

Gates    V.    Ballou,    56    Iowa   741 

201     213 
V.   Brown,    1    Wash.    St.    470  '   111 
V.    Whitcomb,    4    Hun.    137        128 
Gato     V.     Warrington,     37     Fla. 

542  169 

Gaty    V.    Casey,    15    111.    189 

32.    139,   186 
Gauhn    v.    Mills,    2    Abb.    N.    C. 

(N.   Y.)    114  278 

Gaule   V.    Bilyeau,    25    Pa.    521 

11,      27 

Gault  V.  Deming,  3  Phila.   (Pa.) 

337  140 

V.    Soldani,    34    Mo.    150  244 

V.    Wlttman,    34    Md.    35  99 

Gay    V.    Brown,    1    E.    D.    Smith 

(N.    Y.)    725  143 

Gavlord  v.  Loughridge,  50  Tex. 

573  4,      20 

Geary    v.    Bangs,    33    111.    App. 

582  49 

Gebhard  v.   Levering,   14   Phila. 

(Pa.)     120  123 

Geddes    v.    Bowden,    19    S.    C.    1     58 
Gee    V.    Torrey,    77    Hun    23  170 

Geiger    v.    Hussey,    63    Ala.   338     47 
Geigle  v.  Lavis,  1  Wilcox  (Pa.) 
208  102 


Geiss  V.  Rapp,  1  Walk.  Ill, 
14   Leg.    Int.    (Pa.)    116 

98,     233,   246 
Geller    v.    Puchtheller,    1    C.    D. 

18,    1    Ohio    Cir.    Ct.    30  86,   229 

Gelston    v.    Thompson,    29    Md. 

595  212 

General  Fire  Extinguisher  Co. 
v.    Chaplin,    183   Mass.    375  95 

v.   Lundell,    66  111.   App.   140      275 
v.     Magee    )Carpet    Wiorks, 

199     Pa.     647  218,   236 

v.    Schwartz   Bros.   Commis- 
sion   Co.,    165    Mo.    171 

95,     96,    97,    138,     157,   268 
General     Supply     Co.     v.     Hun, 

126    Ga.    615  58,      67 

Genest  v.  Las  Vegas  Masonic 
Bldg.  Ass'n.,  (N.  M.)  67  Pac. 
743  47,    96,   233 

George    v.     Everhart,     57    Wis. 

397  299 

Georges     v.     Kessler,     131     Cal. 

■too  9  '?6 

Gerard  v.  Birch,  28  N.  J.  Eq. 
317  104 

v.    Ecker,    33    Pittsb.     (Pa.) 

293  123 

Gere   v.    Cushing,    68   Ky.    304 

157,   176 
German     etc.     Bldg.     Ass'n.     v. 
Heebner,   13  Montg.   Co.   Law 
Rep'r.    56  102 

German  Bank  v.  Schloth,  59 
Iowa    316,    13    N.    W.    314 

126,   162,    177,   211 
Germania    Building      &      Loan 
Ass'n.    V.    Wagner,     61       Cal. 
349  174 

Germania    Sav.    Bank's   Appeal, 

95   Pa    329  29 

Gerry  v.  Howe,  130  Mass.  347  31 

V.    Painter,   9   Pa.   Super.   Ct. 

150  251 

Getchell  v.  Allen,  34  Iowa  559       12 
v.    Moran,    124    Mass.    404 

121.    135,   244 
V.  Musgrove,  54  Iowa  744  179 

Getchell  etc.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Peter- 
son, (Iowa)  100  N.  W.  550 
1123  170,   172 

Getto    V.     Friend,     46     Kan.    24 

143,   162 
Getty    V.    Ames,    30    Ore.    573 

43.   100 
V.     Pennsylvania    Inst.,     194 
Pa.     St.     571  171 

V.    Tramel,    67    Iowa   288  22 

Getz  V.  Brubaker,  25  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.    303  56 

V.    Brubaker,    17    York    (Pa. 

81,    84,    121,    122  47 

Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  San  Diego 
Flume  Co.,  78  Cal.  193  20 
Pac.    419  241 

v.   San   Diego   Flume  Co.,   97 

Cal.   263  128 

Gibbons  v.  Brewer,  37  Wkly.  L. 

Bull.    90  146,     81 

Gibbs    v.    Grant,    29    N.    J.    Eq. 

419  164 

V.    Hanchette.    90   Mich.    657      121 

v.    Peck,    77    Pa.    86  119 

v.     Valley,     (Cal.)     63       Pac. 

168  182,   286 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


Gibson  v.  Lenane.  94  N.  T.  183        67 
V.    Wheeler,    110    Cal.    243 

127,   270 
Gier    v.    Daiber,    148    Mich.    190 

25,    49,   261 
Giesberg  v.  Mutual  Building  & 

Loan   Ass'n.,    (Tex.)    60   S.   W. 

478  26 

Gilbert    v.    Moody,    CKy.)    36    S. 

W.    523  176 

V.    Tharp,    72    Iowa    714  98 

Gilcrist    v.    Anderson,    59    Iowa 

276  67 

Gilcrest  v.  Gottschalk,  39  Iowa 

311  179,   218 

Gillespie  v.   Bradford,   15  Tenn. 

(7    Yerg.)    168  163 

V.     Remington,    66    Tex.    108 

90,  104,  106,  237,  240 
Gilliam  v.  Black,  16  Mont.  217  292 
Gillispie    V.    Stanton,    67    Tenn. 

284  24 

Gillispie   Tool   Co.   v.   Wilson   & 

Tener,    21    Law    Bull.    12  23 

Gilman  v.   Gard,    29   Ind.   291 

71,    239,   290 
V.    Ryan,    95    Va.    494  117 

Gilmer    v.    Wells,    (Tex.)    43    S. 

W.    1058  80 

Gilmour    v.    Colcord,    96       App. 

Div.     (N.    Y.)     358  35 

Gilson  V.  Emery,   77   Mass.   430      213 
Gimbert    v.    Heinsath,    11    Ohio 

Cir.    Ct.    R.    339  57 

Girard    Point      Storage      Co.    v. 

Riehle,   (Pa.)   12  Atl.   172  268 

V.    Southwark    Foundry    Co., 

105    Pa.    248  85 

Girarthy    v.    Campbell,    6    Rob. 

(La.)    378  64 

Given    v.    German    Elvangelical 

Reformed    Church,    15    Phila. 

(!Pa.)    300  171 

Glacius  V.   Black.   67  N.  Y.    563      286 

Glading  v.    Frick,    88    Pa.    460  79 

Glass  V.  Freeberg,  50  Minn.  386   157 

V.        St.      Paul        Carriage   & 

Sleigh      Co.,      43      Minn. 

228  135,   244 

Glassport   Lumber  Co.   v.  Wolf, 

213   Pa.    407  57 

Glen   Cove   Granite   Co.   v.    Cos- 

tello,   65  App.  Div.  43  292 

Glencoe  Lime  etc.   Co.  v.  Wind, 

86    Mo.    App.    163  172 

Glendon    Co.    v.    Townsend,    120 

Mass.     346  182 

Globe   Iron    Roofing  etc.    Co.   v. 

Thatcher,    87    Ala.    458  120 

Globe    Light    &      Heat       Co.    v. 

Doud,    47    Mo.    App.    439  175 

Glos    V.    John    O'Brien    Lumber 

Co..   183  111.   211  200,   221,   273 

Gnekow    V.     Confer,     (Cal.)     48 

Pac     331  198 

Goble'  V.    Gale,    7    Blkf.     (Ind.) 

218  45,    94,   176 

Godeffrov    v.    Caldwell,    2    Cal. 

489  20 

Goepp      V.    Gartizer,    3      Phila. 

(Pa.)    335  77 

Gooringer      v.       Schappert,      10 

Kulp.     (Pa.)     95  12,   267 


Goff   V.    Hosmer,   20   R.   I.    91  220 

v.    Papin,    34   Mo.    177  221 

Gogin  V.  Walsh,   124  Mass.   516      111 
Goldheim  v.    Clark,    68    Md.    498 

11,    136,   141 
Goldman      v.    Brinton,    90      Md. 

259  167 

Goldstein    v.    Leake,    138      Ala. 
573  268 

v.    Michelson,    45   Misc.    Rep. 

601  185 

Golrick  v.    Telia,    22    R.    I.    281     189 
Goodale  v.   Walsh,   2  Thomp.   & 

Co.     (N.    Y.)     311  99 

Goodbub    v.    Hornung,    127    Ind. 

181  7,   45,      82 

Goodfellow      V.    Manning,      148 

Pa.    96  267 

Goodin    v.    EUeardsville       Hall 

Ass'n.,    5    Mo.    App.    289  14 

Goodman  v.  Baerlocher,  88  Wis. 
287  2,    86,   186 

v.    Fried.    55    111.    App.    362        117 
Goodman    etc.    Co.   v.   Pence,    21 

Neb.    459  165 

Goodrich      v.    Gillies,    62      Hun 

479  269 

V.   Gillies,    66  Hun    422  122 

v.    Gillies,    82    Hun    18  122 

Goodrich  Lumber  Co.  v.   Davie, 

13    Mont.    76  105 

Goodwin      v.    Cunningham,      54 

Neb.    11  157,   280 

Gordon    v.    Deal,    23   Ore.    153        107 
V.  Norton,  186  Pa.  St.  168 

57,  117 
V.    Norton,    5    Lack.    Leg.    N. 

(Pa.>   381  136,   245 

V.    Torrey,    15   N.   J.    Eq.    112, 

26,    129,    150,    155,   197 
Gordon    Hardware    Co.    v.    San 
Francisco  etc.   R.  Co.,   86  Cal. 
620  122 

Gorgas   v.    Douglas,    6    Serg.    & 

R.     (Pa.)     512  85 

Gorman    v.    Bepler,    4    Ohio    N. 

P.  241  5 

v.    Dierkes,    37   Mo.    576  253 

V.    Sagner,    22   Mo.    139  179 

Gortemiller    v.    Rosengarn,    103 

Ind.   414  45 

Gosline    v.    Thompson,    61    Mo. 

471  220 

Goss    V.    Greenleaf,    98    Me.    436     10 
V.    Helbing,    77    Cal.    190  138 

Gould  V.  Barnard,  14  Mont.  335 

58,  67 
V.  Garrison,  48  111.  258  233,  297 
V.    Wise,    18    Nev.    253 

8,    42,     85 
Gould    Coupler    Co.    In    re.,    79 

Hun    206  131 

Goulding    v.    Smith,    114    Mass. 

487  249,   258 

Gourdier    v.     Thorp,     1     B.       D. 

Smith,     (N.    Y.)     697  210 

Gove    V.    Cather,    23    111.    585 

1,   11,   153 
Grable  v.  Helman,  5  Pa.  Super. 

Ct.    324  12 

Grace  v.  Nesbit,  109  Mo.  9 

76,    77,    116,    117,   239 
v.      Oakland      Bldg.      Ass'n., 
166    111.    637  113,   120 


XXXVlll 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


212 
131 


Graf  V.   Cunningham,   109  N.   Y. 

360  66.   119 

Graff    V.     Rosenberg-h,     6      Atab. 

Prac.    (N.    T.)    428  204 

Grafton  Grocery  Co.  v.  Home 
Brewing  Co.,  (W.  Va.)  54  S. 
E.  349  101 

Graham    v.    Holt,    43    Ky.    61 

177,   191 
V.    Meehan,    4    111.    522  34 

V.   Sanford,   112   N.   Car.   660      297 
Grainger  v.   Old   Kentucky  Pa- 
per  Co.,    (Ky.)    49   S.   W.    477      163 
Grand  Opera  House  Co.  v.   Mc- 

Guire,     14    Mont.     558  159,   282 

Grand  Island  Banking  Co.  v. 
Koehler,    57   Neb.    649 

18.   113,   156 

Grant  v.   Strong,  85  U.  S.   623 

V.      Vandercook,       57      Barb. 

(N.   Y.)    165 

Graton   etc.   Mfg.   Co.   v.   Wood- 

worth-Mason    Co.,    69    N.      H. 

177  130.   159 

Graves   v.    Bemis,    90   Mass.    573     32 

V.    Merrill,    67   Minn.    463  172 

V.   Pierce,    53    Mo.    423  14,   116 

Gray   v.   Carleton,    35   Me.    481  27 

V.  Dick.  97  Pa.  142  116,   117 

V.    Dunham,    50    Iowa    170  174 

V.    Elbling,    35    Neb.    278 

V.  Havemever,  53  Fed.  174 

V.    HoldshiD,    17    Serg.    &    R. 

413 
V.  Walker,   16   S.  Car.  143 
Gray's   Harbor   Commercial   Co. 

V.    Wotten.    14    'W^ash.    87 

Great    So.    Fireproof   Hotel    Co. 

V.    Jones,    13    Ohio    Fed.    Dec. 

127,     14    Ohio    Fed.    Dec.     337 

44, 

V.    Jones,    116    Fed.    793 

4,    116,    117, 
Great  Spirit  Springs  Co.  v.  Chi- 
caaro    Lumber    Co.,    47      Kan. 
672  90,   98,    250 

Great  '^''estern  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Burns.    59    Mo.    App.    891  94 

V.    Hunter,    15   Neb.    32 

8,    18.    21,    120,   178 
Green    v.    Berge,    105    Cal.    52        296 
V.    Brown.    146   Ind.    1  155 

V.    Chandler,    54    Cal.    626  270 

V.  Clifford,  94  Cal.  49  205.   229 

V.    Farrar    Lumber    Co.,    119 

Ga.  30  68,  127,   195 

V.   Fox,    89    Mass.    85  177 

V.    Green,    16    Ind.    253      130,   159 
V.    Jackson      Water     Co.,   10 

Cal.   374  220 

V.    Sandford,    34    Neb.    363        225 
V.     Sprague,     120       111.       416 

11.   284 
V.     Williams,     92     Tenn.     220 

54,   150 
Green  etc.  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bain, 

77    111.    App.    17  213 

Green   &   Co.    v.    Thompson,    172 

Pa.    609.    33    All.    702  22 

Green   Bav   Lumber   Co.   v.   Ad- 
ams.   107    Iowa    672  47 
V.  Independent  School  Dist., 

121   Iowa   663  184,   185 

V.    Miller,    98    Iowa    468  121 


246 
296 


138 

24 


296 


120 


Green      Bav      Lumber      Co.      v. 
Thomas,     106     Iowa    154 

68,    179,    194,   260 
Greene    v.    Ely,    2    G.      Greene, 
(la.)     508  8,   108,   176 

V.  Finnell,  22  Wash.  186 

260,   299 
V.    McDonald,    70    Vt.    372 

30,    40,   140 
V.    Robinson,    110   Ala.    503 

76,   127 
Greenleaf  v.  Beebe,   80  111.   520       29 
Green    Lumber      Co.    v.      Nutri- 
ment   Co.,    113    111.    App.    635 

34,      68 
Greenough    v.    Nichols,    30    Vt. 

768  10,   58,   154 

V.    Wigginton,    2    G.    Greene, 

(Iowa)     435  29,   197 

Grecnway  v.   Turner,   4  Md.   296      64 
Greenwood    v.    Tennessee    Mfg. 
Co.    &      Agricultural    School, 
32    Tenn.    (2    Swan)    130  9,      47 

Greenwood   etc.    Ry.   v.    Strang, 

77  Fed.  498  12 

Greig  v.    Riordan,    99   Cal.    316       41 

Greilick     Co.     v.     Rogers,     144 

Mich.  313  77 

V.    Taylor,    143    Mich.    704  115 

Gress    Lumber    Co.    v.    Rogers, 

85   Ga.    587  224,   230 

Grewar    v.    Alloway,    3      Tenn. 

Ch.    584  14 

Grey   v.   Vorhis.   8   Hun    (N.  T.) 

612  244 

Gridlev    v.    Rowland.    1    E.    D. 

Smith,     (N.    Y.)     670  205 

V.    Sumner.    43    Conn.    14  67 

Oriel's  Appeal,   (Pa.)   9  Atl.  861      117 

Griffin   v.    Booth,   152   111.   219  66 

V.   Ernst.   124  App.  Div.   289        14 

V.    Seymour,    (Colo.)    63   Pac. 

809  6,      26 

Griffith    V.    Maxwell.    20    "^"ash. 

403  4,    120,   236.   237,   240,   299 

Griggs  V.  Le  Poidevin,   11  Neb. 
385  240,   249 

V.   Stone,   51  N.  J.   Law   549         14 
Grippen   v.   Weed,    22   App.   Div. 

593  106 

Griswold  v.   Carthage,   etc.   Ry. 

Co.,    18    Mo.    App.    52  165 

Groesbeck    v.    Barget,     1     Kan. 

App.    61  99 

Grogan    v.    McMahon,    4    E.    D. 
Smith     (N.    Y.)    754  209 

V.     Raphael.     6       Abb.    Prac. 

(N.    Y.)    306  209 

Grosbeck  v.  Ferguson,  43  Iowa 

532  159 

Gross   V.   Butler,    72    Ga.    187  74 

V.    Camp,    4    Pa.    Co.    Ct.    R. 

461  186 

V.   Daly,  5   Daly,    (N.  Y.)   540     26 
V.    Stoltz,    2    Pa.    Co.    Ct.    R. 

190  117 

Grosz    V.    Jackson,    6    Dalv    (N. 

Y.)    463  14 

Groth  V.   Stahl.   3  Colo.  App.   8        25 
Grove  v.   Lewis,   17   Pa.   Co.   Ct. 

R.   452  211 

Grubbs   v.   Cones,    57   Mo.    83  86 

Grundeis     v.     Hartwell,     90     111. 
324  34,   274 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

Gruner  etc.  Lumber  Co.  v.  Nel- 
son,   71    Mo.    App.    110  47,      85 

Guaranty  etc.  Inv.  Co.  v.  Cash, 
(Tex.)   91  S.  W.  781  136 

Guerrant  v.  Dawson,  34  Miss. 
149  212,   227 

Guernsey  v.  Reeves,  58  Ga.   290     67 

Guest  V.  Lower  Merion  "Water 
Co.,     142    Pa.     610  10 

Gug-g-olz  V.  Callan,  25  Misc. 
Rep.    762  260 

Gullfoyle  v.  Maclntyre,  11 
Montg.  Co.   Law  Rep'r.,    (Pa.) 

12  95 
Guiou   V.    Ryckman,    (Neb.)    110 

N.   W.   759  27,   103,   116,   261 

Guise    V.    Oliver,    51    Ark.    356  13 

Gulick  V.  Webb,  41  Neb.  706  280 
Gulledg-e     v.     Preddy,     32     Ark. 

433  43 

Gull  River  v.  Brig'gs,  9  N.  Dak. 

485  10 

Gull      River      Lumber      Co.      v. 

Keefe,    6    Dak.    160  181 

Gunby    v.    Drew,    (Fla.)    34    So. 

305  299 

Gunther    v.    Bennett,    72    Md.    384 

19    Atl.    1048  109,   252 

Gurney    v.    Walsham,    16    R.    I. 

698.  19  Atl.  323  22,  75,  86,   219 

Guthrie  v.  Brown,  42  Neb.  652  269 
Gutshal     V.     Kornaley,     (Colo.) 

88  P.   158  119 

Guy    V.    Duprey,    16    Cal.    196  30 

Gwinn   v.   Wright,    (Ind.)    80   N. 

■E.    163  289 

H 

Haberzettle  v.   Dearing,    (Tex.) 

80     S.     W.     539  212,   224 

Hackett    v.    Badeau,    63    N.    Y. 

476  27 

Haden    v.    Buddensiek,    6    Dalv, 

(N.    Y.)    3  98,    131,   213 

Haeussler  v.  Missouri  Glass  Co., 

52    Mo.    452  132 

Hafker   v.    Henry,    5    App.    Div. 

258  181 

Hagan      v.    American      Baptist 

Home       Missionary      Soc,    14 

Daly    131  66 

V.  Gaskill,   42  N.  J.  Eq.   215      141 
Hagarty   v.    Grant,    2    Brit.    Col. 

1777  8,   119 

Hagenman    v.    Fink,   19   Pa.    Co. 

Ct.    R.    660  130 

Hagman    v.    Williams,    88    Cal. 

146  246,   259 

Hahn's   Appeal,    39    Pa.    409  157 

Hahn    v.    Bonacum,    (Neb.)     107 

N.    W.    1001  49,   261 

V.    Dierkes,    37    Mo.    574  75 

Haight  V.  Srhuck.  6  Kan.  192  280 
Haine    v.    Dainbach,    4    Pa.    Co. 

Ct.     R.    633  171 

Haines   v.    Barr,    1    Phila.    (Pa.) 

52  116,    117 

V.  Chandler,  26  HI.  App.   400 

34,     98 
Haldeman   v.   McDonald,    (Tex.) 

58    S.    W.    1040  10,   161 

Hale   V.   Burlington   &c.   R.   Co., 

13  Fed.     203  179 
V.   .Johnson,    6    Kan.    137     17,     25 


to  Sections.] 

Hall  V.  Ackin,  47  N.  J.  L.  340  29 
V.  Baldwin,  45  N.  J.  Eq.  858  66 
V.  Banks,  79  Wis.  229  66,  67 
V.    Bennett,    48    N.    Y.    Super. 

Ct.    302  198 

V.    Blackburn,    173    Pa.    310        56 
V.       Bullock,     29       Ky.    Law 

Rep.   1254  26,   140 

V.     Dennerlein,     14       N.       Y. 

Supp.     796  183 

V.   Erkfltz,   125  Mich.  332 

31,    71,   74,   213 
V.   Hagg,   20   Ont.   R.    13  94 

V.    Hinckley,    32    Wis.    362 

151,   228 
V.    Johnson,    57    Mo.    521  268 

V.    Long,    34    Misc.    Rep.    1 

49,    191,    192,    271,    275,   276 
V.    New    York,    79    App.    Div. 

102  144,   297 

V.    Parker,    94    Pa.    109  42 

v.   Pettigrove,    10   Hun    609i        179 
V.  St.  Louis  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Mo. 

App.    33  162,    262 

V.    Spaulding,    40   N.   J.   Law 

166  234 

V.    Wills,    3    La.    Ann.    504  127 

Hall  Safe  &  Lock  Co.  v.  Scites, 

38    "W.    Va.    691  10 

Hall   Terra  Cotta  Co.   v.   Doyle, 

133    N.    Y.     603  28,   287 

Hallahan  v.  Herbert,  57  N.  Y. 
409  197,   221 

V.    Herbert,     11    Abb.    Prac. 

(N.    S.)    326  27,   143 

.  167,    188.    244,    253,   287 
Haller  v.  Clark,   21  D.   C.   128  49 

Halley      v.    Alloway,    78    Tenn. 

523  14 

Halsted   v.   Arick,    76   Conn.   382 

21,    85.   178 
Hamilton    v.    Dunn,    22    111.    259 

197,    245 
V.    Naylor,    72    Ind.    171 

80,   90,   219 
V.    Stelwaugh.    11    Ohio    Cir. 

Ct.    R.     182  20,   44,      66 

V.    Whitson,    (Kan.)    48    Pac. 

462  140,    167,    221 

Hammond  v.  Barnum,  13  Mo. 
325  212 

V.    Darlington,    109    Mo.    App. 

333  103,   150 

V.    Martin     (Tex.)     40    S.    W. 

347  143,   201 

V.    Shepard,    50   Hun    318  220 

V.   Wells,   45  Mich.   11  33 

Hampton    v.      Broom,    1      Miles 

(Pa.)     241  225 

V.      Christensen,      (Cal.)      84 

Pac.     200  67,   79,   127 

Hanchey    v.     Hurlev,     129     Ala. 

306  35.   161 

Hand  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Marks,   (Ore.) 

52    Pac.    512  229 

Hanes  v.  Wadej',  73  Mich.  178  6 

Haney  etc.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Adaza 
Co-operative  Creamery  Co., 
108    Iowa    313  5^ 

Hankinson    v.    Riker,    10    Misc. 

Rep.   185  107,   143,   145.   187 

Hanks   v.   Barron,   95   Tenn.    275    169 
Hnnna   v.    Colorado    Sav.    Bank, 
3    Colo.    App.    28  115,   153 


xl 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


102 

31 
34 

276 
236 


Hannah  etc.  Co.  v.  Mosser,  105 
Mich.    18  90,    105,   195 

208,    209,    220,    233,    254,    261 
Hannan   v.   Logan,   14   Mo.  App. 

33  136 

Hansen  v.  Kinney,  46  Neb.  207      256 
Hanson  v.  News  Publishing  Co., 

97    Me.    99  14,      25 

Harbach'  v.   Kurth,   131   Pa.    177 

278,   279 
Harbeck   v.    Southwell,    18   Wis. 

418  53,    58,    229,   246 

Harbolsheimer    v.       Totten,       7 

Pa.    Co.    Ct.    R.     665 
Hard    v.    Owens,     (Tex.)     48    S. 

W.    200 
Hardin    v.   Marble,    76    Ky.    58 
Hardwick    v.    Royal    Food    Co., 

78    Hun    52 
Hardy    v.    Miller,    11    Neb.    395 
Harkner  v.   Conrad,   12   Serg.   & 

R.     (Pa.)     301  77,   104 

Harlan    v.     Rand,     27    Pa.     511 

20,   22,      58 
V.    Stufflebeem,    87    Cal.    508      270 
Harley    v.    Mapes   Reeve    Const. 

Co.,    33    Misc.    Rep.    626     •  66,   195 
Harman    v.    Cummings,    43    Pa. 

322  12,   101,   122 

Harmon  v.  Ashmead,  68  Cal. 
321  110,   200 

V.  San  Francisco  &c.  R.  Co., 
86     Cal.     617 
Harner      v.    Thomas,    10      Dist. 

Pa.     487  99,   124 

Harnish    v.    Herr,    98    Pa.    6 
Harper    v.    Keeley,    17    Pa.    234 
Harrington  v.  Dollman,  64  Ind 

255  82,   121 

V.    Latta.    23    Nebr.    84 
V.    Miller,    4    Wash.    808 

106,   204,   225 
Harris  v.  Gardner.  24  Ky.  Law- 
Rep.    103 
V.    Harris,     (Colo.)     47    Pac. 

841 
V.   Harris,    (Colo.)    69    P.    309 

111,   242,   287 
V.    Page.    23    R.    I.    440 
V.   Schultz,   64  Iowa  539 
V.    Youngstown    Bridge    Co., 

90    Fed.    322  161,   186 

V.    Youngstown    Bridge    Co., 

93    Fed.    355  175 

Harrisburg      Lumber      Co.       v. 
Washburn,     29    Ore.     150      10,    105 
121,    122,    157.    256.    262 
Harrison    v.    Breeden,    8      Miss. 
670  33 

V.  Women's  Homeopathic 
Hospital  Ass'n.,  134  Pa. 
558  14,      97 

Harrison  &c.  Iron  Co.  v.  Coun- 
cil Bluffs  Citv  Waterworks 
Co.,    25    Fed.    170  222 

Harsh   v.  Morgan,   1   Kan.   277 

140,   143 
Hart  V.  Iron  Works,  37  Ohio  St. 
75  44 

V.  T\^heeler.  1  Thomp-.  &  Co., 

(N.    Y.)     403  27 

Hart  etc.  Corp.  v.  Mullen,  4 
Colo.    512  99,   284 


121 


108 

22 


228 


161 
153 


123 
12 


Hartford      Building      &      Loan 

Ass'n.   V.   Goldreyer,   71   Conn. 

95  55, 

Hartley      v.    Murtha,    36      App. 

Div.    196 
^■.    Richardson,    91   Me.   424 
Hartman    v.    Berry,    56    Mo.    487 
171, 
V.    Sharp,    51   Mo.    29 
Harvey    v.    Brewer,    178    N.    Y. 

5  192, 

Harvev     &c.     Plumbing    Co.    v. 

Wallace,    99    HI.    App.    212 
Harwood    v.     Brownell,     32     111. 

App.     347 
Haskel     v.     Gallagher,     20     Ind. 

App.    224  13, 

Haskin    '^"ood-Vulcanizlng    Co. 

v.       Cleveland       Shipbuilding 

Co.,    94   Va.    439 
Haslett   V.   Gillespie,   95  Pa.   371 
Hassenfus         v.         Philadelphia 

Packing   &   Provision   Co.,    15 

Pa.    Co.    Ct.    650  97, 

Hassett    v.    Curtis,    20    Neb.    162 
253, 
V.    Rust,    64    Mo.     325 

120,    229, 
Haswell  v.  Goodchild,  12  Wend. 

373  33,   53, 

Hatch     V.     Coleman,     29       Barb. 

(N.    Y.)    201 

V.  Faucher.  15  R.  I.   459     16, 
Hatcher    v.    Hendrie    &c.    Sup- 
ply Co.,    133   Fed.    267 
Hathaway    v.    Davis,    32      Kan. 

693 
Hathorne  v.  Panama  Park  Co., 

(Fla.)     32     So.     812      126,   235, 
Haughton    v.    Blake,    5      Calif. 

240 
Haupt  Lumber  Co.  v.  Westman, 

49    Minn.    397 
Hauptman    v.    Catlin,    20    N.    Y. 

247  7,    29,    110, 

V.     Halsev,     1    E.    D.     Smith, 

(N.     Y.)     668  252, 

Hause   v.    Carrol,    37    Mo.    578 

V.    Thompson,    36    Mo     450 

Hauser  v.   Haffman,   32  Mo.   334 

Hausmann      Bros.    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

Kempfert,    93    Wis.    587        76, 
Havens    v.    West    Side    Electric 

Light    &    Power   Co.,    66    Hun 

626 

Lindberg,      67 


156 

36 
90 

210 
297 

195 

34 
34 
45 


14 
12 


Havighorst 
111. 


68, 
Haviland    v.    Pratt,    9   Leg.    Int. 


(Pa.)     98 


114, 


Haw   V.    Burch,   110   Iowa   234 

Hawkins    v.    Boyden,    25    R.    I. 

181  108.    123,    129, 

V.      Burrell,    69      App.      Div. 

462 

V.  Mapes-Reeves   Const.   Co., 

82    App.    Div.    72 

86,   170,    182, 
Hawkins  Lumber  Co.  v.  Brown, 

100   Ala.   217 
Hawley  v.  Henderson,   34  Miss. 
261 
V.  Warde,   4  G.  Greene   (la.) 
36 


105 

262 

243 

257 

47 
58 

198 
11 

296 
21 

164 

270 

255 

296 

58 

6 

224 

25 

463 
181 

261 
146 

232 

64 

223 
22 
27 

177 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


xli 


[References  are 

Haworth  v.  Wallace,  14  Pa.  118  11 
Haxtun    Steam    Heater    Co.    v. 

Gordon,    2    N.    Dak.    246  158 

Hayden    v.    Logan,    9    Mo.    App. 

492  136 

V.  Wulflng-,  19  Mo.  App.  353      112 
Hayden   Slate   Co.   v.   Anderson, 

76  Mo.  App.   281  97 

V.    National   Cornice    &    Iron 

Co.,    62    Mo.    App.    569  174 

Haves    v.    Hammond,    162      111. 

133      .  Ill,    115,    118,    119,   122 

V.    Fessenden,    106   Mass.    228      27 
V.  Lock,  33  Ohio  L.  Bull.  228      69 
Hayden       Saddlery      Hardware 

Co.    V.    Slade,    3    Ohio    C.    C. 

67  77,    87,      92 

Haynes  v.   Holland,    (Tenn.)    48 

S.  W.   400  16,      43 

Hays    V.     Goodman.    16    Montg. 

Co.    Law    Rep.     (Pa.)     43  135 

V.   Mercier,   22  Neb.    656  106 

V.       Tryon,     2       Miles,     (Pa.) 

208  121 

Hayward    v.    Leonard,    7    Pick. 

181  49 

Hazard   Powder   Co.    v.    Byrnes, 

12   Abb.   Prac.    469  18 

V.   Loomis,    2   Disn.   544        23,      33 
44.     80,     111,     129,     146,    154 
Hazelton  Plumbing  (To.  v.  Pow- 
ell.  13   Pa.    Super.   Ct.    426  57 
Heady    v.    Bexar   Building    &c. 

Ass'n.,     (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    26 

S.    W.    468  32 

Heagney    v.    Hopkins,    23    Misc. 

Rep.    608  185 

Heald    v.    Hodder,    5    TVash.    St. 

677  112,   261 

Healy  v.  Wayne   Title  &  Trust 

Co..  19  Pa.   Super.  Ct.   371  173 

Heamann  v.  Porter.  35  Mo.  137  121 
Heard  v.  Holmes.  113  Ga.  159  58 
Heath   v.    Solles,    73    Wis.    217  37 

V.     Tyler.     44     Md.     312        26,      99 
Heaton   v.   Horr.    42   Iowa   187  58 

Heberlein      v.    "Wendt,    99      111. 

App.    506  210 

Heckmann    v.    Pinkney,     81     N. 

Y.    211  6,    49.    128 

Hecla  Iron  Works  v.   Hall,    115 

App.   Div.   126  115 

Heery  v  J.  L.  Mott  Iron-Works 

Co..   (Kan.   App.)    62  Pae.   904      170 
Heidelbach   v.    Jacobi,    28    N.   J. 

Eq.    544  162 

Heidritter     v.     Elizabeth     Oil- 
cloth  Co.,    6   Fed.    138  21 
Heidegger    v.    Atlantic    Milling 

Co.,    16    Mo.    App.    327  14 

Heier    v.    Meisch,    33    Mo.    App. 

35  103,   200 

Heiman    v.     Schroeder,     74     111. 

158  268 

Heinlein    v.    Murphy,      3     Misc. 

Rep.    47  95 

Held    v.    Burke,     83    App.    Div. 

509  115 

Helen  v.  Chapman,  66  Cal.  291  12 
Helena  Lumber  Co.  v.  Montana 

Cent.    Ry.    Co.,    10   Mont.    81        250 
Helena  Steam  Heating,  &c.,  Co. 

V.  Wels,   16  Mont.   65  4,   49,   267 


to  Sections.] 

Heller   v.    Hohman,    5   Ohio   Cir. 

Dec.   338  38 

Hellwig      V.      Blumenberg,      55 

Hun   605  35 

Heltzell    V.    Hynes,    35    Mo.    482 

?  41       2S  fi 

V.    Langford,    33    Mo.    396      '    244 

Heminway  v.  Cutler,  51  Me.  407     25 

Henderson  v.   Connolly,  123   111. 

98  27,  163,  288 

V.    Sturgis,    1    Daly    (N.    Y.) 

336  66 

V.  Wasserman,  58  Hun  608  35 

Hendricks    v.    Fields,    26    Grat. 

(Va.)     447  7,    295.    297 

Hendrickson  v.  Norcross,   19  N. 

J.  Eq.  417  207 

Hengstenberg  v.  Hoyt,   109  Mo. 

App.    622  267 

Henley    v.    Wadsworth,    38    Cal. 

356  57,   64 

Henry  v.  Applegate,  111  111. 
App.    13  34 

V.   Bunker,   22  Mo.  App.   650        74 
V.    Evans,    97    Mo.    47  11 

V.  Hand,  36  Ore.  492  129,  172,  185 
V.    Plitt.    84    Mo.    237      13,    15,    77 
Henry    &    Coatsworth     Co.     v. 
Bond.    37    Neb.    207  178,    179 

V.    Evans,    97    Mo.    47, 

4,    67,    68,   127 
V.    Fisherdick.    37    Neb.    207 
98 
119.    129,    140,    157,    167,'   180 
V.    Halter,    58    Neb.    685 

16,    102,   117,   155 
V.    McCurdy.    36    Neb.    8  63  262 

Hensel    v.    Johnson,    94   Md.    729 

75,  76,  77,  98,  99,  106,  130,  275 
Hentig  v.  Sperry,  38  Kan.  459  118 
Hermann    v.     Mertens,     87     Md. 

725  71,   75 

Hern    v.    Hopkins,    13    Serg.    & 

R.    (Pa.)    269  210 

Heron  v.  Robinson,  2  Pars.  Eq. 

Cas,    248  109 

Herrell    v.   Donovan,    7   App.   D. 

C.    322  58,    220 

Herring-Hall-Marvin  Co.  v. 
Kroeger  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  57 
S.   W.    980  10 

Hersh    &    Son    v.     Carman,     51 

Neb:   784  176,    235 

Hershey  v.    Shenk,   58   Pa.    382        12 
Hervey    v.    Gay,    42    N.    J.    Law 
168  33,   36 

v.       Hendricks,       4       E        D 

Smith    (N.    Y.)    768         "      58 
Hescock  V.  Phelps,  2  Lans.    (N. 

Y.)    106  296 

Hess  V.   Peck,   111   111.   App.   Ill 

070        9Q  fi 

V.    Poultney,    10    Md.    257      71,    76 
Heston  v.  Martin,  11  Cal.  41  116 

Hetzell   V.   Chicago,   &c.,  R.  Co., 

20  Mo.  App.    435  98 

Hewitt    V.    Truitt,    23    Mo.    App. 

443  241 

Hewson-Herzog    Supply    Co.    v. 

Cook,   52   Minn.    534  160 

Heyde   v.   Suit,   22   Ind.  App.    83 

82,   104 
Hibbard    v.    Talmage,    32    Neb. 

147  ,  248 


xlii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


Hickey  v.  Collom,  47  Minn.   565 

19,  120,  143 
V.    O'Brien,   11    Daly    (N.   Y.) 

292  284 

V.   Schwab,    64   How.   Prac.   3        8 
Hickox     V.    Greenwood,    94     111. 

266  151 

Hicks   V.    Branton,    21   Ark.    186 

214,   246 
V.  Murray,   43  Cal.  515 

4,    68,    69,    70,    lis.    244 
V.     Roanoke    Brick     Co.,     94 

Va.    741  10 

V.    Scofleld,    121    Mo.    381  228 

Hightower  v.    Bailey,    (Ky.)    56 

S.  W.  147  58,  68 

Higley   v.    Ringle,    57   Kan.    222 

99.   115,   268 
Hildebrandt  v.  Savage,  4  Wash. 

524  284,    296 

Hill   V.   Aldrich,    48  Minn.   73  164 

V.    Alliance    Bldg.    Co.,    6    S. 
Dak.    160 

119.    120,    167.    176,    177 
V.    Bowers,    45    Kan.    592  19 

V.  Braden,  54  Ind.  72     45.  85,   216 
V.    Bramhall,    1    Miles    (Pa.) 

352  246 

V.    Callahan,    58    N.    H.    497        219 
V.    Cassidy.    24   Mont.    108  299 

V.    Chowning,    93    Mo.     App. 

620  292 

V.    Gill,    40    Minn.    441  27,   163 

V.    Gray,    81    Mo.    App.    456 

53.   85,    104 
V.    Kaufman,    98    Md.    247  261 

V.   La  Crosse,  &c.,   R.   Co.,   11 

Wis.  214  10,  12.  134.  205 

V.   Lovell.   47   Minn.    293  6 

V.    Mathewson.    56   Conn.   323      56 
V.   Meyer,    47   INIo.    585  265 

V.    Milligan.    38    Pa.    237  273 

V.   Newman,    38   Pa.   151  17 

V.  Ryan,  54  Ind.  118     44,  108.  216 
V.    Sloan,    59    Ind.    181  21,    45 

V.   Stagg,   1  Wils.    (Ind.)    403 

123,  218 
Hill's  Estate  In  re,  2  Clark  96, 
3   Pa.   Law  J.    323 

12.  94,  98,  101.  104,  106,  293 
Hillburn  v.  O'Barr.  19  Ga.  591  140 
Hillhouse   v.     Pratt,     74     Conn. 

113  162 

Hilliard  v.  Allen.  58  Mass.  532     213 
Hilliker    v.    Francisco,    65     Mo. 

598  114.    127 

Hillis  V.  Halliwell,   50   Conn    270   32 
Hillnian    v.    Anthonv,    63    Tenn. 

444  234 

Hills  V.  Elliott,  16  Serg.  &  R. 
56  91 

V.  Ohlig.   63   Cal.   104  111 

Hilton  V.  Merrill.   106  Mass.  528     27 
Hinchman    v.    Graham,    2    Serg. 
&   R.    fPa.)    170  19 

V.    Lybrand.    14    Serg.    &    R. 

(Pa.)   32  179 

Hinckley     v.      Field's      Biscuit, 

&c.,   Co.,  91  Cal.   136  41 

Hinckley.      &c.,      Iron      Co.      v. 

James,   51  Vt.    240  19,   156 

Hindert  v.  American  Trust  & 
Savings  Bank,  100  111.  App. 
85  23.   34.    235 


Hine   v.   Vanderbeen,   170   N.   T. 

580  261 

Hines  v.  Chicago  Bldg.  & 
Manuf'g.    Co.,    115   Ala.    637 

139,  177,  280 
V.  Cochran,  44  Neb.  12  85,  173 
V.    Miller,    122    Cal.    517  31 

Hinkley    v.     Grafton    Hall,    101 

"U^is.   69  20,   94 

Hintze    v.    Yreiss,    45    111.    App. 

220  68 

Hirshfleld    v.    Ludwig,    69    Hun 

554  160 

Hoag  V.   Hay,   103   Iowa   291  139 

V.    Hillemever,    1    N.    Y.    St. 

Rep.    549  131 

Hoagland  v.  Lowe,   39  Neb.   397 

140,    164 
v.    Lusk,    33    Neb.    376 

30,  176,  178 
v.  Van  Etten,  22  Neb.  681,  31 

Neb.    292  165.   210 

Hoatz  V.   Patterson,   5  Watts  & 

S.    (Pa.)    537  48 

Hobart   v.    Reeves.   73   111.   527  49 

Hobbs    V.    Spiegelberger,    3    N. 

Mex.    222  115,    128,    212 

Hobby    V.    Day,    51    Hun    644  27 

Hobkirk  v.  Portland  Nat.  Base- 
ball   Club.    44    Ore.    605  99 
Hobson    V.     Townsend     (Iowa), 

102  N.   W.   413  20 

Hocker  v.  Kelley,  14  Cal.  164        231 
Hodgson    V.    Billson,     12     Kan. 

568  292 

Hofegesang    v.    Meyer,    2    Abb. 

N.   C.    Ill  67 

Hofer's   Appeal.    116   Pa.    360  99 

Hoff's   Appeal.    102    Pa.    218  153 

Hoffa      V.        Homestead        Bldg. 

Assn.    3  Pa.   Dist.   R.   566  123 

Hoffman    v.    Haines,     8     Phila. 

(Pa.)    248  183 

V.  Laurans.  18  La.   70  25 

V.    McColgan.    81    Md.    390  143 

V.    T\'alton.    36    Mo.    613  122 

Hoffmaster   v.    Knupp,     15     Pa. 

Co.  Ct.  R.  140         123,  124.  246,  267 
Hoffstrom   v.    Stanlev,    14    Man. 

R.    227  ■  218 

Hokanson      v.      Gunderson,      54 

-\Iinn.    499  228 

Holbrook    v.    Ives,    44    Ohio    St. 

516  50.    133,    147 

Holcomb    v.    Boynton.     151     111. 

294  6,    281,    283 

Holcombe  v.  Mattson.  50  Minn. 

324  170,  189,  190 

Holden  v.  Bright  Prospects 
Gold  Mining.  &c.,  Co.,  6 
Brit.   Col.   L.    439  43,   94 

v.   "U'inslow.   18   Pa.   160  267 

Holeman    v.    Redemptorist    Fa- 
thers.   4   Pa.   Co.   Ct.    R.  233 
Holland   V.    Cunliff    (Mo.   App.), 
69  S.  W.   737                     108,   129, 
136,    155.    165,    189.    223,    224,    292 
V.    Garland,    13    Phila.    (Pa.) 

544  103,  105,  121 

V.    Jones.    9    Ind.    495  225 

V.  McCartv.   24  Mo.   App.   82      134 

V.  Wilson.  76   Cal.   434  41,  246 

Holler   V.   Apa,    18    N.    Y.    Supp. 

588  301 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


xliii 


[References  are  to  Sections.^ 
Holley  V.  Van  Dolsen,   55  How 


Prac.    (N.    Y.)    3i33  127 

Holliday     v.      Mathewson,      146 

Mich.   336  10 

Hollister   v.   Mott,    132   N.   Y.    18      65 

Holmes    v.     Ferguson,     1     Ore. 

220  156 

V.  Humphrey,   187  Mass.   513   227 

V.   Hutchins,   38   Neb.    601 

103,   104,   121 
V.  P.lchet.   56  Cal.  307  21 

V.    Shands,   26   Miss.    639  58 

Holtschneidei-    v.    Page,    51   Mo. 

App.  285  117 

Holzhour  V.   Meer,    59  Mo.   434 

10,    12,    13 
Homans    v.    Coombe,    3    Cranch 

C.  C.    365  129,   151,   197 

Home   Brewing-  Co.   v.  Johnson 

(Ind.    App.),    83    N.    B.    358  97 

Home    Lumber    Co.    v.    Deisher, 

91  111.   App.  628  56 

Home     Savings    &   Loan     Assn. 

V.  Burton,  20  "Wash.  §88     160,  161 
Hommel   v.   Lewis,    104   Pa.    465 

9,     22 
Hondorf    v.    Atwater,     75     Hun 

389  66,   253 

Hood      V.      Building     Assn.,      9 
Phila.   105  182,   196 

V.    Norton,    202    Pa.    114  131 

Hooker  v.  McGlone.  42  Conn.  95 

11,     56,    101,    139,    149,    221 
Hooper     v.    Fletcher,    145     Cal. 
375  299,    300 

V.  Sells,   58   Ga.   127  167 

Hoover    v.    Wheeler,    23     Miss. 

314  139.    159 

Hooven     v.      Featherstone,      68 
Fed.    778  8 

V.      Featherstone,    99       Fed. 

180  103,   122 

V.   Featherstone.    11    Fed.    81 
8,    14.   76,    94, 
103,    115,    121,    136,    175,    186 
Hopkins    v.    Conrad,    2     Rawle 
(Pa.)    316  194 

V.    Forrester,    39    Conn.    351 

^        .  121,   176 

V.    Jamieson-Dixon   Mill    Co., 
11    Wash.    308  6,    85,   107,   112 

Hopper   V.   Childs,   43   Pa.    310  27 

Hoppes   V.    Bale,    105    Iowa    648 

13,    80 
Horgan    v.    McKenzie,    17    N.    Y. 

Supp.    174  259 

Hormann     v.     T\^irtel,      59      Mo. 

App.    646  90,    256 

Horn,    &c.,    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Steel- 
man.    215    Pa.    187  6 
Horr  V.   Slavik,   35   111.  App.  140      49 
Horstkottle    v.    Menier,    50    Mo. 

158  228 

Horton     v.      Carlisle,      2     Disn. 
(Ohio)    184  21,    38 

V.    St.   Louis,   &c.,    R.    Co.,    84 
Mo.    fi02  281 

V.   Watson,   8   Pa.   Co.   Ct.    R. 

143  99 

Hoskins  v.  Carter.   66  Iowa  638   155 
Hotaling   v.    Cronise,    2    Cal.    60 

77,    103,    187 
Hough    v.    Collins,    70    111.    App. 
661  30,   49 


Houlahan    v.    Clark,    110     Wis. 

43  64 

House   v.   Schulze,    21   Tex.   Civ. 

App.     243  64,    66,    142,    221 

Houston  V.  Long  (Ky.),  23  S. 
W.    586  149 

V.    Myers,    88    Tex.    126  33 

Houston  Cotton  Exch.  v.  Craw- 
ley (Tex.),  3  Wills.  Civ.  Cas. 
138  249 

Hovey    v.    East    Providence,    17 

R.    I.    80  10 

Howard  v.  Allison,  27  C.  C. 
(Pa.)    262  56 

v.    American    Boiler    Co.,    68 

111.   App.    566  7 

v.  Veazie,   69   Mass.   233  26 

Howarth  v.   Chester  City  Pres- 
byterian  Church,   162   Pa.    17        57 
Howe  v.   Kindred,   42   Minn.  4.3i3 

177,  178,  179 
V.   Smith,   6  N.  Dak.   432  103 

Howell  V.  Campbell,  12  Phila. 
(Pa.)    388  lie 

V.   Hathaway,   28   Neb.   807  31 

V.    Wise,    28    Neb.    756  298 

V.   Zerbee,   26   Ind.    214  104 

Howes  V.  Dolan,  9  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.    586  271 

V.  Reliance  T\''ire  Works  Co., 

46  Minn.   44  17,  49,  150 

Howett  V.  Currier,  63  Wis.   386    150 
V.    Selby,    54    111.    151  247,    293 

Hoy   V.    Peterman,    28   La.    Ann. 

289  188 

Hoyt  In   re,  Fed  Cas.   No.   6,805 

130,  144,  158 
V.  Greene.  33  Mo.  App.  205  170 
V.  Miner,  7  Hill.    (N.   Y.)    525 

32.   128,   189,    209 
Hubbard    v.    Brown,    90     Mass. 
590  97,    121 

v.    Lee     (Cal.),    92    Pac.    744 

77,   207 
v.    Moore,    132    Ind.    178 

56,    216,   229.    244 
Hubbell    V.    Schreyer,    56    N.    Y. 

604  8,    101,    123.    287,    292 

Hubon    V.    Bousley,     123    Mass. 

368  276 

Huck    V.    Gaylord,    50    Tex.    578 
..    .    .  47,    94 

Hudnit    V.    Roberts,     10     Phila. 

(Pa.)    535  98 

Hudsen   v.   McCartney,    33    Wis. 

331  49 

Hudson   v.  Barham    (Va.),  43   S. 

E.    189  155 

Huetter   v.   Redhead,    31   Wash. 

320  49.   261,   275 

Huff   V.    Clark,    59    Tex.    347  33 

V.   Jolly,   41  Kan.   537  27 

Hug  V.  Hlntrager,   80  Iowa  359 

67,    120 
Hughes    V.    Hoover    (Cal.),      84 
Pac.     681  219,     292 

V.   Lansing,   34  Ore.   118    113,    173 
V.        Lambertville      Electric 
Light,    &c.,    Co.,    53    N. 
J.    Eq.    435  14 

v.    McCasland,    122    111.    App. 
365  129,    140,    ISO 

v.  Torgerson,  96  Ala.   34  6 

16,    103,    227 


xliv 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

V. 


274 


19 

235 
131 


Hughes,    &c.,    Manuf'g     Co. 

Conyers,   97   Tenn.   274 
Hulburt  V.   Just,    126   Mich.    337 

121,   191,   192 
Humboldt   Bldg.   Ass'n.   v.  Vol- 

mering  (Ky.),  47  S.  W.  1084  162 
Hume  V.  Robinson,  23  Colo.  359  286 
Hunnicutt.      &c.,     Co.     v.     Van 

Hoose,    111    Ga.    518  64,    68 

Hunt  V.   King-.  97  Iowa  88  169 

Hunter    v.      Blanchard,     18     111 
318 
V.   Cordon.   32   Ore.   443 
V.  Lanning,  76  Pa.   25 
V.     Truckee    Lodge    No.     14, 
14    Nev.    24.    7  4    Nev.    35 

8,  68,  95.  123,  237 
V.  Walter,  58  Hun  607  49,  110 
V.    T\"alter.    128   N.    Y.    668  262 

Huntington    v.     Bartin,     64    111. 

502  8,   219 

Huntley   v.    Holt,    58    Conn.    445 

24,    26 

Hurd  V.  Johnson  Park  Inv.  Co., 

13    Misc.    Rep.    643  57 

V.    Tomkins,    17    Colo.    394  126 

V.   Wing,   93  App.   Div.    62  35 

Hurlbert    v.    New    Ulm    Basket 

Works,  47  Minn.  81  106.  110,  244 
Hurley  v.  Lally,  151  Mass.  129  111 
Hursey  v.  Hassam,  45  Miss.  133  284 
Hurst   V.    Randall,    68   Mo.   App. 

507  170 

Hurtt    V.    Sanders    Bros.     Mfg. 

Co.,    99    111.    App.    665 
Huse  V.  Washburn,  59  Wis.   414 

99     237     265 
Husted  V.   Mathes,   77  N.   Y.  "388 
V.    National    Home    Building 
&  Loan  Assn.,   152  Ind. 
698 
V.   W^alters,    77   N.    Y.    388 
Hutchins  v.  Bautch   (Wis.),  101 

N.    W.    671  34.    49 

Hutton  V.  Gordon,  2  Misc.  Rep 
267 
V.    Maines.    68    Iowa    650 
Hydraulic    Press    Brick    Co.    v, 
Bormans,    19  Mo.   App.    664 
V.    McTaggart,    76    Mo.    App. 

347  110,    115 

V.  Schlingmann,  88  IMo.  App 
17 

I 


76 


32 


275 
9 


126 


158 


105 


laege  v.  Bossieux,  15  Grat.  Va. 

83  79,    153,    165,    214,   274 

Idaho    Gold    Min.    Co.    v.    W"in- 

chell.    (Idaho)    56   P.    533  175 

Idalio     &c.     Land     Imp.     Co.     v. 

Bradburv,    132    U.    P.    509  295 

Iliff  V.  Forssel.  7  Wash.  225  143 
Improvement      Co.    v.    Karn,    80 

Va.    589  4 

Indiana  &c.  Loan  Ass'n.  v.  Pax- 
ton.  18  Ind.  App.  304  236 
Indiana    R.    Co.    v.    Wadsworth, 

29    Ind.    App.    586  67 

Industrial   &c.  Co.  v.  Electrical 

Supply  Co..   58  Fed.  732  12 

Inglehart   v.    Thousand      Island 

Hotel  Co..  108  N.  Y.  454  278 

Inman    v.    Henderson,    29      Ore. 

116  99 


to  Sections.] 

Installment  Building  &c.  Co.  v. 

Wentworth,   1  W^ash.   St.   467      101 
Interior        "Woodwork      Co.      v. 

Prasser,    108   Wis.    557  171 

Interstate    Building    &c.    Ass'n. 
V.   Ayers.   177   111.   9 

31,   112,    140,    156,    157,    205,   274 
V.    Fortassain,    (Tex.)    23    S. 

^V.    496  11,      20 

V.    Goforth,    (Tex.)    59    S.    W. 
871  33 

Inveraritv    v.    Stowell,    10      Or. 

261  162 

Iowa  Brick  Co.   v.   Des  Moines, 

111    Iowa    272  205 

Iowa    Mortgage      Co.    v.    Shan- 
quest,   70  Iowa  124  157 
Iowa    Stone    Co.    v.      Crlssman, 

(Iowa)    83   N.  W.   794  56 

Irish    V.    Harvey,    44    Pa.    76  86 

V.  Lundin,  28  Neb.  84  294 

V.  O'Hanlon.    34   Neb.   786  27 

V.  Pulliam,  32  Neb.  24  173 

V.   Pheby,    28   Neb.    231  245 

Iron  '^''orks  v.  O'Brien,   156  Pa. 

St.    172  49 

Irwin   V.   Benyon,   4  Man.  L.   R. 
10  6 

V.    Crawfordsville,    72      Ind. 

Ill  104 

V.    Crawfordsville,    58      Ind. 

492  241 

v.   Nittanv   Rod  &c.   Club,   23 

Pa.    Co.    Ct.    R.    375  102 

Isenman  v.  Fugate,  36  Mo.  App. 

166  173 

Isler  V.   Dixon,    40   N.   C.   529  13 

Ison  Co.  V.  Murray,  38  O.  S.  323     81 
Ittner   v.    Hughes,    133    Mo.    679 

56,    67,    86,   113 
V.    Hughes,    154    Mo.    55  167 

Ivey    V.    "W'hite,    50    Miss.    142 

129,    151,   153 


Jackman      v.    Gloucester,       143 

Mass.  380  102 

Jackson   Co.   v.   Haven,   87   App. 

Div.    236  124 

Jacobus    V.    Mutual    Ben.      Life 
Ins.    Co.,    27    N.    J.    Eq.    604 

130,   161 
Jacoby  v.  Scongale.  26  111.  App. 

46  261 

Jacques    v.    Morris.     2      E.      D. 

Smith    (N.    Y.)    639  239 

James   v.  Dalbey,   107   Iowa  463     31 
V.    Hambleton.   42   111.    308  136 

v.    Hayes.    63    Kan.    187  33 

V.    Keller.    2    Pa.    Dist.    165  3 

V.      St.     Paul's      Sanitarium, 

(Tex.)   60  S.  W.   322      68,      74 
V.   Van    Horn,    39    N.    J.    Law 

353  117 

123,    234,    236,    267 
Jameson  v.   Gile,    98   Iowa   490 

27,  163 
James    River    Lumber    Co.      v. 

Danner,   3  N.   D.   470  162 

Jamison  v.  Barelli,   20  La.  Ann. 

452  146,   163 

J-arechi    v.    Philharmonic    Soc, 
79    Pa.    403  14 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


xlv 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


Jarrell   v.   Block,    (Okla.)    92    P. 

167  11.   212 

Jarrett    v.    Hoover,    54    Neb.    56 

100,   277,   280 
Jarvis   v.    State   Bank,    22    Colo. 

309  49,    64,   269 

Jarvis-Conklin  Mortg-.  Trust 
Co.  V.  Sutton,  46  Kan.  166 

26,    239,   240 
Jean   v.    Wilson,    38    Md.    288  130 

Jeannette  Planing-  Mill  Co.  v. 
Greenawalt,  11  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
157  77 

Jeffers  v.  Anderson,  7   Pa.  Dist. 

482  124 

Jefferson  v.  Hopson  Bros.,  27 
Ky.    L.    140  29,   33,   150 

V.   McCarthy,   44  Minn.   26  170 

Jeffersonville  Co.  v.  Riter,  138 
Ind.    170  26,   82,   102 

118,  216,  239,  244,   253 
Jeffries   v.   Myers,   9   Ind.     App. 

563  45,   289 

Jenckes    v.    Jenckes.    145      Ind. 

624  82,    148,    155,    161,   167 

Jenks  V.  Brown.   66  N.  Y.   629  64 

V.    Kress,    7   Ohio    Dec.    109  4 

Jennings  v.  Hinkle,   81  111.    183      223 

V.  Hug-gins,   125   Ga.   338 

250,   255 
V.    Ne-wman,    52    Ho-w.    Prac. 

282  260,   271 

V.    Wilier,    (Tex.)    32    S.    W. 

24  66 

V.   Willis,    22   Ont.    R.    439  66 

Jensen  v.   Bro-wn,   2  Colo.   694        127 
Jepherson    v.    Green,    22    R.      I. 

276  189,    212,   299 

Jerecki    Mfg-.    Co.    v.    Struther, 

8   C.   D.    (Ohio)    5  18,      44 

Jessup  V.  Stone,  13  Wis.   466 

138,   156 

Jeure   v.   Perkins,   29   lo-wa  262        76 

Jewell    V.    McKay,    82    Cal.    144 

110,    112,    116,    238, 

V.   Paron,    94   Mich.    83 

Jewell  County  v.  Snodgrass  &c. 

Mfg.    Co.,    52    Kan.    253  10,      53 

Jewett  V.  Darlington,  1  Wash. 
T.   601  86 

V.    Iowa  Land   Co.,    64   Minn. 
531  247 

V.  Weston,    11   Me.   346  49 


301 
65 


Jobe  V.  Hunter,  165  Pa.  5 


37,   250 

58 


Jobsen  v.  Boden,  S  Pa.  463 
Jodd  V.  Duncan,  9  Mo.  App.  417  255 
John  V.  Algor,  65  N.  J.  Law  363  204 
John   Paul  Dumber  Co.   v.   Hor- 

mel.  61  Minn.  303  97,   100,    243 

John   P.   Kane  Co.   In   re.,    66   N. 

Y.    S.    684  185 

Johns   V.   Bolton,   12   Pa.    339 

97,   176 
Johnson   v.   Alexander,    23   App. 
Div.  538  24 

V.  Amarillo  Imp.  Co.,  88  Tex. 

505  56 

V.      Badger      Lumber        Co., 

(Kan.)    55   P.    517  143 

V.    Barnes    &c.    Bldg.    Co.,    23 

Mo.    App.    546  74,    122 

V.  Bennett,   40  Pac.   848 

17,    30,   223 
V.  Boudry.  116  Mass.  196  275 

V.   Bush,   23    Ky.   L.   1399  33 


Johnson  v.  Dewey,  36  Cal.  623  155 
V.  Frazee,  20  S.  C.  500  232,  284 
V.    Gold,    32    Minn.    535  97 

V.    Iron    Belt    Min.    Co.,      78 

Wis.    159  261 

V.  Keeler,  46  Kan.  304  204,  231 
V.    La   Grave,    102    Cal.    324  97 

V.  Lau,  58  Minn.  508  248 

V.   McClure,    (N.   M.)    62  Pac. 

983  16 

V.    McHenry,   27   Mo.    264  237 

V.  Otto,  105  Iowa  605  121,  298 
V.   Pike,  35  Me.  291 

27,  218,  272 
V.    Puritan    Mining    &c.    Co., 

19  Mont.  30  154,   157,   162 

V.    Salter,    70   Minn.    146  107 

V.   Scofleld,  22  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R. 

382  272 

V.    Simmons,    123    Ala.    564 

257,  269 
V.  Stout,  42  Minn.  514  113 

V.  Tutewiler,  35  Ind.  353  31,  45 
V.    Weinstock,    31    La.    Ann. 

698     .  225 

V.    White,     (Tex.)    27    S.    W. 

174  94 

Johnson-Prazier      Lumber      Co. 

V.   Schuler,   49  Mo.  App.  90  227 

Johnston  v.   Dahlgren,   14  Misc. 
Rep.    623  11 

v.    Harington,    5   Wash.    73 

108,    117,   119 
Jones    v.    Alexander,    18      Miss. 
627  8,    131,   218 

V.    Carey-Lombard      Lumber 

Co.,  87  111.  App.  533      11.      56 
V.    Congregation    of      Mount 

Zion,    30    La.    Ann.    711  10 

V.  Crumb,  53  Hun  631  26,  188 
V.  Hancock,  1  Md.  Ch.  187  151 
V.  Hall,  9  Ind.  App.  458  45,  269 
V.   Hartsock,   42   Iowa   147  283 

V.  Holv  Trinity.  15  Neb.  81  154 
V.  Hotel  Co..  86  Fed.  370  4,  68 
V.    Hurst,    67    Mo.    568  167 

V.    Kern,    101    Ga.    309  96,   129 

V.   Kruse,   138  Cal.   613 

96,  115,  120 
V.    Manning,    53    Hun    631 

36,  107,  208 
V.  McKenzie,  20  Misc.  222  223 
V.   Menke,   168   N.   Y.    61  36 

V.    Moores,    67    Hun    109  176 

V.    Osborn,    108    Iowa    409 

143,  163 
V.  Philler,  13  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  232  123 
V.  Pothast,  72  Ind.  158  31,  45 
V.  Quantrell,  2  Idaho  141  296 
V.   Shaw.   53   Mo.   68  235 

V.    Shawhan,    4    Watts    &    S. 
(Pa.)    257 

16,  107.  113,  176,  234 
V.  Shuey,  (Cal.)  40  Pac.  17  255 
V.  Swan,  21  Iowa  181  33,  129 
V.      TValker,    16      Abb.   Prac. 

359  11,   284 

V.   \\^alker,   63   N.   Y.    612  31 

V.  White,  72  Tex.   316  176 

Jones    Lumber    Co.    v.    Villegas, 

8  Tex.  Civ.  App.   669  172 

Jones  &c.  Lumber  Co.  v.  Boggs, 
63  Iowa  589  232 

v.    Murphy,    64    Iowa    165 

57,   98,   128,   130 


xlvi 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

Jonte  V.   Gill,    (Tenn.)    39  S.  W. 

750  20,     30 

Joost   V.    Sullivan,    111    Cal.    286 

32,   41,   97,   262 
Joralman     v.     McPhee,     (Colo.) 

71    P.    419  96,    157,    161,   278 

Jorda   V.    Gobet,   5  La.   Ann.    431      66 
Jordon   v.   Board    of  Education, 

39   Minn.  10 

Jorgensen      Co.    v.    Sheldon,      2 

Alaska    607  8,   235 

Jose   V.  Hoyt,    106   Mo.  App.  594    261 
Joshua  Hendy   Mach.  Works  v. 

Pacific    Cable    Const.    Co.,    24 

Or.    152 
Jossman  v.  Rice,   121  Mich.   270 


254 
142 
116 


Jovce    V.       Corcoran,    9       Kulp 

(Pa.)    502 
Judson  V.   Stephens,   75  111.  255 

143,  245 
Julien    Gaslig-ht    Co.    v.    Hurley, 

11    Iowa    520  296 

Julin  V.  Ristow  Poths  Mfg-.  Co., 

54  111.  App.  460  128,   247,   271 

Julius  V.  Callahan,  63  Minn.  154 

200,   234 
June  V.   Doke,    (Tex.)    80    S.   W. 

402  33,    79,    135.    151,   279 

Justice   V.   Elwert,   28   Or.    460  49 

Justus  V.   Myers,   68   Minn.   481      259 

K 

Kahler   v.    Betterton    (Tex.),    51 

iS.    W.    289  280 

V.    Carruthers,    48    Tex.    Civ. 

App.   216  53,  79,   278 

Kalina    v.    Steinmeyer,    103    111. 

App.    502  299 

Kane   v.    Hutkoff,    81   App.   Div. 

105  101,    119,    287 

V.    Stone    Co..    39    O.    S.    6  234 

Kane    Co.    v.    Kinney,    35    Misc. 

(N.   Y.)    1  66 

Kankakee    Coal    Co.    v.     Crane 

Mfg.    Co.,    28    111.    App.    371 

177.    179,    259 
Kansas  City  Hotel  Co.  v.  Sauer, 

65    Mo.    279  138 

Kansas    City    Planing    Mill    Co. 

V.   Brundage.   25  Mo.  App.   268      31 
Kansas  Loan,  &c..  Co.  v.  Phelps, 

&c..   Windmill   Co.    (Kan.),   54 

Pac.    136  272 

Kansas    Lumber    Co.    v.    Jones, 

32    Kan.    195  10 

Kansas    Mortg.    Co.    v.     Wever- 

haeuser,    48    Kan.    335  129.    130 

Kasper    v.    St.    Louis    Terminal 

Ry.    Co.    (Mo.),    74    S.    W.    145 

74.    94,    109,    236 
Katzenbach    v.    Holt,    43    N.    J. 

Eq.    536  189 

Kauffmann    v.    Cooper,    46    Neb. 

644  170 

Kaufman-Wilkinson         Lumber 

Co.    V.     Christophel,     59     Mo. 

App.    80  177 

Kay  v.    Smith,    57    Tenn.    41  219 

v.   Townsley,    113   Mich.   283      157 
Kaye    v.    Bank     of     Louisville, 

39   Ky.  261  275 


to  Sections.] 

Kavlor    v.    O'Connor,     1    E.    D. 

Smith    (N.  Y.)    672  111,   146 

Kealey   v.    Murray,    61   Hun    619 

107,    120 
Kealing    v.    Voss,    61     Ind.     466 

107,   255 
Kearney  v.   Wurdeman,   33   Mo. 

App.    447  98,    117 

Keasley  v.  Murray,   61  Hun   619      36 
Keating     v.      Worthlngton,      11 

Ohio    Dec.    428  87,    116,    244 

Keating  Imp.,    &c.,    Co.    74   Tex. 

605  no 

Kechler    v.    Stumme,    36    N.    Y. 

Super.    337  244 

Kee  V.  Hilt,  33  W.  N.  C.   104  246 

Keefe   v.   Minehan,    93    111.  App. 

586  76 

Keeley  Brewing  Co.  v.  Neu- 
bauer  Decorating  Co.,  194  111. 
580  74 

Keemer     v.      Herr,      2     Penny. 

(Pa.)    175  295 

Keene    Guaranty    Sav.    Bank   v. 

Lawrence,    32    Wash.    572  158 

Kees   V.    Kerney,    5    Md.    419  246 

Kehoe  v.  Hansen,  8  S.  Dak.  198 

6,     17 
Keim  v.  McRoberts,  18  Pa.   Su- 
per.   Ct.    167  146,    167,    261 
Kellenberger  v.   Boyer,   37   Ind. 

188  216.  225 

Keller   v.   Denmead,    68   Pa.    449 

11,    26,    130,    140 
v.   Carterville   Building,    &c., 

Assn.,  71  Mo.  App.  465      273 
v.    Coman,    162    111.    117 

179,    282.    283 
v.    Home    Life    Ins.    Co.,    95 

Mo.   App.   627  174 

v.   Houlihan.   32    Minn.    486        110 
v.    Struck.    31    Minn.    446 

10,   25,   240 
V.   Tracy.   11   Iowa  530  225 

Kelley  v.  Bank  of  State,  Mc- 
Mul.    Eq.    (S.    C.)    431  58 

V.    Border    City      Mills,    126 

Mass.   148  12 

V.   Chapman.   13   111.  530  274 

V.    Northern    Trust    Co.,    190 

111.     401  8,     34 

V.    Plover,    103    Cal.    35     111,  252 
V.    Syracuse,    10     Misc.     Rep. 

306  77 

Kellogg   V.   Howes,   81   Cal.    170 

41,   74,   128,   130 
V.    Littell.    1    Wash.    St.    407 

12,    104,   138 
Kelly's    Appeal,    2     Atl.      (Pa.) 

868  129,  164 

Kelly  V.  Bloomfngdale,  64  Hun 
634  67 

V.    Bloomingdale,    139    N.    Y. 

343  90 

V.    Brown,    20    Pa.    446  100 

V.    Gilbert,    78   Md.    431  231 

V.    Kellogg,    79    111.    477  75 

V.    Lemberger,     (Cal.)     46 

Pac.    8  101,    106,    107 

V.    McGehee,    137    Pa.    443  267 

V.    McKenzle.    1    Man.    169 

120,    165 
V.  Merritt,  68  N.  Y.  S.   774  97 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


xlvii 


[References  are 

Kelly  V.  Rosenstock,  45  Md.  389 

130,   267 
V.  Rowane,  33  Mo.  App.  440     268 
Kelsev     v.      Rourke.      50     How. 

Prac.     (N.    Y.)     315  233,    265 

Kendall    v.    Fader,    199    111.    294 

5,    114,    121,    176,    17S,    261,    299 
V.    Folpom,    34    Me.    198  7 

V.    McFarland,    4    Ore.    292 

99     151     277 
V.    Pickard,    67    N.   H.    470      '    144 
Kendall    Mfg:.      Co.    v.    Rundle, 

78    Wis.    150  158,   178 

Kenly  v.    Sisters    of  Charity   of 

St.    Joseph,    63    Md.    306  76 

Kennebec  Framing  Co.  v.  Pick- 
ering.   142    Mass.    80  99 
Kennedy    v.    Haddow,    19.  Ont.    240 
V.    House,    41    Pa.    39         105,    267 
V.  McKone,   10  App.  Div.   88      274 
V.   Paine,    1   E.   D.    Smith    (N. 

Y.)    651  67 

Kennedy,      &c.,       Lumber      Co.       v. 
Dusenberry,    116    Cal.    124 

198    '"^  7  5 
V.  Priet,  113  Cal.  291  272^  287 

Kennett     v.     Rebholtz,     4     Bull. 

960  76.    80,    81,    87 

Kenney  v.   Apgar,    93   N.   Y.    539 

15,    74,     301 

Kenny  v.  Gage,  33  Vt.  302  139 

V.    Monahan,    169    N.    Y.    591      265 

Kent   V.    Brown,    59    N.    H.    236      298 

Kent      Lumber      Co.      v.      Ward 

(Wash.),    79    Pac.    485  167,    175 

Kentucky    Building,    &c..    Assn. 

V.    Klster,    101    Ky.    321  164 

Kentucky    Co.    v.    New   Albany, 

62    Ind.    63  45 

Kentucky  Lead  &  Oil  Co.  v. 
New  Albany  Waterwarks,  62 
Ind.    63  10 

Kenyon  v.  Peckham,  10  R.  I. 
402  97 

V.  Walsh,  31  Misc.  Rep.   634      195 
Keogh  V.  Main,   50  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.    183  120 

Keogh    Mfg.    Co.    V.    Eisenberg, 

7    Misc.    Rep.    78  176 

Keppel   V.   Jackson,    3   Watts  & 

S.    (Pa.)    320  132 

Kefbaugh      v.      Henderson,       3 

Phila.    17  S5 

Kerby   v.    Daly,    45   N.    Y.    84  20 

Kertay-Dennis    In    re,    95    Fed. 

116  190 

Kerckhoff-Cuzner  Mill,  &c.,  Co. 
V.    Cummings,   86   Cal.    22        67,   68 
V.   Olm.stead,    85   Cal.    80  7,    97 

Kern    v.    Pfaff,    44    Mo.    App.    29 

98,    112,    116 
Kerns   v.    Flynn,    51    Mich.    573 

229.    249 
Kerrick    v.    Ruggles,     78     Wis. 

274  140 

Kerrigan    v.    Fielding,    47    App. 

Div.  246  39.  107,  183 

Kerr-Murray  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Kala- 
mazoo Heat,  &c.,  Co.,  124 
Mich.    Ill  74 

Kerwin    v.    Post,    120   App.    Div. 

179  240 

Kesting  v.  Donahue,  6  C.  D. 
(Ohio)    262  69,    147 


to  Sections.} 

Kewanee  Boiler  Co.  v.  Genoa 
Electric  Co.,   106  111.  App.  230 

251 
Keyes    v.    Brackett,    187     Mass. 

306  183 

Keystone  Iron  Works  Co.  v. 
Douglass  Sugar  Co.,  55  Kan. 
195  158 

Keystone  Manufg.  Co.  v.  Galla- 
gher,   5   Colo.    27  129 
Kezartee  v.   Marks,  15   Ore.  529 

85.  105,  107,  115 
Kick  v.  Doerste,  45  Mo.  App.  134  85 
Kidd   v.  Wilson,   23  Iowa,   464  31 

Kidder  v.   Aholtz.  36   111.   478  274 

Kiel  v.  Carll,  51  Conn.  440  115,  244 
Kiene    v.    Hodge,    90    Iowa    212 

130,    162 
Kiessig    v.    AUspaugh,    99    Cal. 

452  169 

Kiewell  v.  Murray,  2  Man.  209  159 
Kiewit  v.  Carter,  25  Neb.  460  170 
Kilbourne  v.  Jennings,  38  Iowa, 

533  57 

Kilby  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Menominee 
Circuit  Judge  (Mich.),  101  N. 
W.  522  250 

Killan    v.    Eigenmann,    57    Ind. 

480  252 

Kille    v.    Bentley,    6    Kan.    App. 

804  182 

Killingsworth  v.  Allen,  1  Phila. 

220  13,   101 

Kilpatrick  v.   Kansas  City.   &c., 

n.    Co..    38    Neb.    640  193 

Kilroy   V.  Mitchell,   2   Wash.   St. 

407  197 

Kimball     v.     Bryan,     56      Iowa 

632  284 

v.    Cook,    6    111.    423  197,    260 

v.   Moody.   97    Ga.   549  196 

Kime  v.  Crider,  20  Pac.  Co.  Ct. 

20  57 

King  v.  Cleveland  Shipbuilding 
.Co.,    50    Ohio    St.    320        81,    94,    97 
v.    Downey    (Ind.),    56    N.    E. 

680  169 

V.   Lamon,   193   111.    537  34 

V.  Moore,  61  App.  Div.  609  49 
v.  Reese,  15  York  (Pa.)  86  182 
V.    Smith,    42    Minn.    286 

11,  138,  187 
Kingsland.    &c.,     Mfg.     Co.     v. 

Massey.  69  Miss.  296  179 

Kinney  v.  Blackmer,  55  Conn. 
261  56 

V.   Duluth   Ore  Co.,   58   Minn. 

455  100,  167 

V.    Hudnut,    3   111.    472  214 

V.    Mathias,    81    Minn.    64  204 

V.    Sherman,    28    111.    520      49,    241 

Kinsey    v.     Spurlin     (Tex.)     102 

S.    W.    122  71 

Kin.slev   v.    Buchanan,    5   Watts 

(Pa.)   118  176 

Kinsy  v.  Eilerman,  23  Kv.  L.  913  6 
Kinzey   v.   Thomas,   28   111.    502 

178,  249,  274 
Kir>n     v.    Massin,    15    111.     App. 

300  299 

Kirby  v.  McGarry,  16  Wis.  68  58 

V.    Tead,    54    Mass.    149 

140,   218,  224 


xlviii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 


Kirchbon    v.    Bonzel,     67     Wis. 

178  259 

Kirk  V.  Taliaferro,  16  Miss.  7.54 

12.   143,   174 
Klrkwood    v.    Hoxle,    95    Mich. 

62  6,    74.    174 

Kirn    v.    Champion    Iron    Fence 

Co.,    86    Va.    608  241 

Kirtland  v.  Moore,  40  N.  J.  Eq. 

106  66.    195,    200 

Kitsmiller    v.    Kitchen,     24    la. 

163  232 

Kltson  V.   Crump,    9   Phila.   41  58 

Kittredge  v.  Neumann,  26  N.  J. 

Eq.    195  164 

Kizer    Lumber    Co.    v.    Mosely, 

56    Ark.    554  212.    256.    281 

Kleinert    v.     Knoop,     147     Mich. 

387  101 

Kline's  Appeal,  93  Pa.  422  85 

Kline    v.    Lewis,    1   Ashm    (Pa.) 

31  163 

V.    Perry,    51    Mo.    App.     422 

25,     31 
Klinefelter    v.    Baum,    172    Pa. 

652  246 

Kling    V.    Railway    Const.    Co.. 

4   Mo.   App.   574  53.   231 

V.  Railway  Const.  Co.,  7  Mo. 

App.    410  108 

Kloeppinger      v.       Grasser,       25 

Ohio    Cir.    Ct.    90  5,   7,   229,   241 

Knabb's  Appeal,   10  Pa.   186 

101,   105,  106,  112.  114,  117 

Knapp   V.    Brown,    45    X.   Y.    207      25 

V.    Greenwood.    83    Iowa    1     278 

V.     Swaney,     56    Mich.     345  10 

Knapp  .  Electrical      Works      v. 

Mecosta      Electric      Co.,      110 

Mich.   547  288 

Knaube    v.    Kerchner.     39     Ind. 

217  15 

Knauber  v.    Fritz,    5    Ohio   Dec. 

410  287 

Knauft    V.    Miller,    45    Minn.    61 

114.    136 
Knellv  V.  Horwath,  208  Pa.  487 

100,    108,    110 
Knickerbocker  Ice  Co.  v.  Kirk- 

patrick.     51    111.    App.    60  214 

Knig-ht  V.  Elliott,  22  Minn.  551      120 
V.    Xorris,    13    Minn.    473 

16.    49.    108 
Knnrr   v.    Elliott,    5    Serg-.    &    R. 

(Pa.)    49  131 

Knowles    v.    Baldwin,    125    Cal. 

224  173,    249 

V.    Joost,    14    Cal.    620  127 

Knowles    Loom    Works    v.    Ta- 

cher.    28    Vt.    490  162 

Knowlton     v.     Smith,     163     Ind. 

294  295 

Knox  V.   Hiltv.   118   Pa.    430  99 

V.    Starks.    4   Minn.    20 

103.    104,    129.    156.    237 
Knudson-Jacob    Co.    v.     Brandt 

fWash.),   87   Pac.    43      21,    237,    261 
Knutzen    v.    Hanson,      28     Neb. 

591  115 

Koch    V.    Sumner,     (Mich.)     108 

N.   V^r    725  247 

Koempel    v.     Shaw,      13      Minn. 

488  247 


to  Sections.] 

Koenig-     v.      Mueller,      39      Mo. 

165  12,    141 

Koepke  v.  Dyer,  80  Mich.  311  280 
Koeppel    V.    Macbeth,    97    App. 

DIv.    299  284 

Kohn  V.  McHatton,  20  La.  Ann. 

485  41 
Koken   Iron  Works  v.   Robber- 
son    Ave.     Ry.     Co.,     141     Mo. 
228                                                             280 

Kotcher    v.    Perrin,     149     Mich. 

690  128,    209 

Krah   v.   Weidlich,   55  Mo.  App. 

536  97 

Kratz    V.    A.    R.    Beck    Lumber 

Co.,    34    Ind.    App.    577  148a 

Krauft  V.  Miller.   45  Minn.   61  53 

Kraus  V.  Murphy,  38  Minn.  422  42 
Kreilich    v.     Klein,     10     Phila. 

486  57 
Kremer  v.  "Walton,  16  Wash.  139  30 
Kreutz    v.    Cramer    (N.    J.),    54 

Atl.    535  66 

Kribs    V.    Craig,     (Tex.)     60    S. 

W.    62  208 

Krotz  V.  Beck,  34  Ind.  App.   577 

82,   151,   224,   275 
Kruger    v.    Braender,     3     Misc. 

Rep.    275  185.    255.    287,    297 

Kruse  v.  Wilson,  79  111.  233  67,  102 
Kudner  v.    Bath    (Mich.),    97   N. 

W.    685  167 

Kulaleman    v.    Schuler,    35    Mo. 

142  74 

Kulp    V.    Chamberlain,     4     Ind. 

App.    560  82,   220,   290 

Kunkle    v.    Reeser,    5    Ohio    N. 

P.  401  98,  44.  81.  115,  177,  254,  256 
Kiischel    V.    Hunter    (Cal.),     50 

Pac.    397  163 


Lackner    v.    Turnbull,     7     Wis. 

1<V5  250 

Lacoste    v.    West,    19    La.    Ann. 

446  33 

La   Crosse,   &c..   R.   Co.   v.  Van- 

derpool.  11  Wis.  119  12 

Laev     Lumber     Co.       v.       Auer 

(Wis.).   101  N.  W.   425  76,  261 

Lafon    V.    Sadler,    4     Mart.      (O. 

S.)    (La.)    476  41 

La    Foucherie    v.     Knutzen,     58 

N.   J.  Law  234  55 

La    Grille    v.    Mallard,    90    Cal. 

373  12,    99 

Laird   v.   Moonan,    32   Minn.    358 

4.    68,    127.    131 
Laird-Norton    Co.    v.    Herker,    6 

S.    Dak.    509  162 

V.   Hopkins,   6   S.   Dak.   217       103 
Lake  v.  Brannin   (Miss.),  44  So. 

65  .  128 

Lake   Shore.   &c.,   R.   Co.  v.   Mc- 
Millan,   84    111.    208  211 
Lamb  v.   Campbell,   19   111.   App. 

272  74 

V.    Cannon,     38    N.      J.      Law 

362  164 

V.    Hanneman,    40    Iowa,     41 

101.   157 
Lambard    v.    Pike,    33    Me.    141 

14,    174 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


xlix 


[References  are 

Lambert    v.    Williams,     2     Tex. 

App.    413  132 

Lamb    Lumber    Co.    v.    Benson, 

90   Minn.    403  261 

Lamon  v.  King-,   91  111.  App.  74        34 
Lamont   v.    La   Fevre,    96    Mich. 

175  74,    121,    136 

Lampson    v.    Bowen,      41     Wis. 

484  276 

Lancaster  v.   Maxwell,   103  Cal. 

67  296 

Landau  v.   Cottrill,  159  Mo.   308 

156,  228 
Landers    v.    Adams,    165    Mass. 
415  182 

V.  Dexter,  106  Mass.  531     135,  136 
Land    Mortg.    Bank    v.    Quanah 
Hotel  Co.   (Tex.),  32  S.  W.  573 

56,   262 
V.    Quanah    Hotel      Co.,      89 

Tex.    332  163 

Landry    v.    Blanchard,     16     La. 

Ann.    173  8 

Landvoig-ht  v.  Melovich,  1  App. 

D.   C.   498  257 

Landyskowski     v.     Martyn,     93 

Mich.   575  126 

Lane  v.   Snow,   66  Iowa  544      26,   207 
V.   Thomas,   25   Ohio   Cir.    Ct. 

303  75,    154 

Lane,  &c.,   Co.  v.  Jones,  79  Ala. 
156 

47,    98.    99,    121,    122,    176,    177 
Lang-    V.     Menasha     Paper     Co., 

119  Wis.   1  86 

Langan  v.  Sankey,  55  Iowa,  52     165 
Langenheim  v.   Anschutz-Brad- 
berry    Co.,    2    Pa.     Super.    Ct. 
285  102 

Lanier  v.   Bell,   81   N.  C.    337  21 

La  Pasta  v.  Weil,  20  Misc.  Rep. 
10  102 

V.   Weil,    46   N.   T.   Supp.    275, 

20  Misc.   Rep.   554        56,   255 
Lapenta    v.    Lettieri,    72    Conn. 

377  74 

Lapham    v.    Ransford.    27    Ohio 

Cir.    Ct.    80  44,    81 

Larkin   v.    McMullin,    120    N.    T. 

206  65 

Larkins  v.   Blakeman,  42   Conn. 

292  53,    79 

Laswell  v.  Presbyterian 

Church,   46  Mo.  279  76,  120 

Latshaw     v.     McNees,     50     Mo. 

381  224 

Lauck's    Appeal,    24    Pa.    426  10 

Laud  V.  Muirhead,   31  Miss.   89      140 
Lauer  v.   Bandow,   43  Wis.   556        37 
V.   Dunn,   115   N.   Y.    405  66 

V.  Dunn.  52  Hun  191  66 

Laughlin    v.    Reed,    89    Me.    226 

273,    277 
Lauman's   Appeal,    8   Pa.    473 

108.    117.    293,    294 
Laviolette    v.    Redding.    43    Ky. 

81  141,    176,    227 

Law    V.    Levine,    13    Pa.    Super. 

Ct.    152  85 

Lawrence      v.      Congregational 
Church,   32   App.   Div.    489  167 

V.  Congregational  Church, 
Long  Island,  164  N.  Y. 
115  257 

V.   Dawson,   167  N.  Y.   609  195 


to  Sectiojis.] 

Lawson    v.   Coates,    56   Ga.    379 

V.    Kimball,    68    N.   H.   549 
Lawton   v.   Case,   73   Ind.   60 

45,    82,    242,    249. 

Lax    V.    Peterson,    42    Minn.    214 

85,   100,   101, 

Lay  V.    Millette,    1   Phila.    (Pa.) 

513 
Laycock     v.    Parker,    103     Wis. 
161  275, 

Lazzari     v.     Havens,     39     Misc. 

Rep.    255 

Leach  v.  Minick,  106  Iowa,  437 

Leary    v.    Lamont     (N.    J.),     42 

Atl.    97  66. 

Leaver    v.    Kilmer    (N.    J.),    59 

Atl.    643 
Lecoutour    v.     Peters,     57     Mo. 

App.    449 
Lecoutout   Bros.    Stair  Mfg.  Co. 

v.  Maddox,   100  Mo.  App.  57 
Lee    V.    Brayton,    18    R.    I.    232 

16, 
V.    Burke,    66    Pa.    336  58, 

V.    Chambers.    13    Mo.    238 
V.   Cook,    2   Wyo.    312 
V.     Exeter     Club,      9     Kulp. 
209  108,    115,    123, 

V.   Gibson,    104   Tenn.    698 
V.  Hassett,  39  Mo.  App.  67 
V.   Hovt,   101   Iowa   101      121, 
V.  Kimball   (Wash.),   88  Pac. 
1121  249, 

V.    King.    99    Ala.    246  19, 

V.  O'Brien,  54  Tex.  635 
V.  Phelps,  54  Tex.  367 
V.  Storz  Brewing-  Co.   (Neb.), 

106   N.   W.   220 
V.    Wiliams,    22    Pa.     Super. 

Ct.  564 
V.    Wiliams,    30    Pa.     Super. 
Ct.    349 
Leeds  v.   Little,   42   Minn.   414 
Leeper   v.    Myers,    10    Ind.    App. 
314  45,    82,    86,    216, 

Lefler    v.    Forsberg-,    1    App.    D. 

C.    36 
Le  Forgee  v.  Colby,  69  IlL  App. 
443  74, 

Leftwich  Lumber  Co.  v.  Flor- 
ence Mutual,  &c.,  Savings 
Assn..  104  Ala.  584 
100,  119,  134,  167,  177,  179,  180, 
Lehman  v.  Thomas,  5  Watts  & 
S.    (Pa.)    262  114, 

Lehretter   v.    Hoffman,    1    E.    D. 
iSmith    (N.   Y.)    664  205, 

Leib    v.    Bean,    1    Ashm.     (Pa.) 
207  156, 

Leick   V.   Beers,    28    Ore.    483 
Leiegne  v.  Schwarzler,  67  How. 

Prac.    130 
Leismann    v.    Lovely,    45    Wis. 

420 
Leisse  v.   Schwartz,   6  Mo.  App. 

413 

Leitch   V.     Central    Dispensary, 

&c..    Hospital,    6    App.    D.    C. 

247 

Lemieux    v.    English,    19    Misc. 

(N.  Y.)    545  64 

Lemly  v.  La  Grange  Iron  & 

Steel  Co.,  65  Mo.  5  45  ,, 
Lemmer  v.  Morrison,  89  Hun 
277 


260 
74 

289 

136 

144 

287 

94 

274 

144 

10 

272 

268 

25 
246 
218 
149 

124 
163 
174 
156 

299 

277 

90 

90 

253 

57 

57 
116 

239 

76 

132 


261 

124 

261 

188 
112 

254 

26 

37 

47 

66 

104 

149 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


Lenderking     v.     Rosenthal,     63 

Md.    28  153 

Lengelsen     v.      McGregor,      162 

Ind.    258  35,    235 

Lentz   V.   Eimermann.    119   Wis. 

492  37,  102,  123,  176 

Leonard  v.  Cook  (N.  J.),  20  Atl. 
855  '  163 

V.   Reynolds,   7   Hun    (N.   Y.) 

73  10 

Lepin   v.    Paine,    18   Neb.    629  297 

Leslie  v.  Leonard,  10  Pa.  Super. 

Ct.    548  30 

V.   Reed.   107   111.  App.   248  240 

Lescard     v.     Town      of      Revere 

(Mass.),    50   N.    E.    533  10 

Lester    v.    Houston,     101    N.     C. 
605  48 

V.    Pedigo,    84    Va.    309  274 

Levinson  v.  Malloy,  64  111.  App. 

425  34 

Lewis  V.  Chickasaw  County,  50 
Iowa    234  10 

V.    3Iorgan,    11    Serg.    &    R. 

(Pa.)     234  74,    252 

V.    Rose,    82    111.    574  140 

V.     Saylors,    73    Iowa    504 

22,    261,    262 
V.    "U^illiams,    3   Minn."l'51       '   200 
Libl^ey  v.  Tidden  (Mass.),  78  N. 

E.   313  16,   261 

Lichtentag    v.    Feitel,     113    La. 

931  169,    184 

Lichty   V.   Houston  Lumber  Co. 

(Colo.),    88   Pac.    846  96 

Lleby  v  .M'ilson,  40  Pa.  63  246 

Lien    on    Broadway    In     re,     15 

Abb.    Prac.    (N.   Y.)    335      263,    264 
Light    Co.    V.    Gill,    14    Pa.    Co. 

Ct.    R.    6  14 

Lignoski    v.    Crooker,    86    Tex. 
324  32,    79 

V.   Crooker   (Tex.),    22   S.   "W. 

774  86.    236.    237,    243 

Limerick  v.   Ketcham,   17  Okla. 

532  31 

Linck    V.     Johnson,       134       Cal. 
XIX  76      258     299 

'v.'Meikeljohn   (Cal.)   84  Pac! 

309  ^fi 

V.   Wolf    (Pa.),   4  Atl.   23  101 

Lind   V.    Braender,    15   Daly   370 

68.    260 
Linden    Steel    Co.     v.     Imperial 
Refining  Co..  138  Pa.  10       103,  123 
V.  Imperial  Refining  Co.,  146 

Pa.    4  20 

Linden  Steel  Co.  v.  Rough  Run 
Mfg.    Co.,    158    Pa.    238 

54.    103,    186 
Lindley  v.   Cross,   31   Ind.    106 

71.   226.   240 
Lindsay  v.   Huth,   74  Mich.   712      119 
V.    Gunning.    59    Conn.    296 

133,    134 
Lindslev  v.  Parks   (Tex.),   43  S. 

W.   277  142 

Lingard  v.  Beta  Theta  Pi  Hall 

Assn.    (Cal.).    56    Pac.    58  245 

Lingren  v.  Nilsen,  50  Minn.   448      21 
Link      V.       Architectural      Iron 

■Works.    24    111.    551  274,    283 

-Linn   v.   O'Hara,    2   E.   D.   Smith 

(N.   Y.)    560  64 


Linne  v.  Stout,  41  Minn.  483  121 

Linneman    v.    Bieber,     85    Hun 

477  167,    176 

Linnemeyer    v.    Miller,     70     111. 

244  248 

Lioman  v.  Jackson,  Architec- 
tural Iron  W^orks,  128  N.  Y. 
58  160 

Lippencott  v.  York,  86  Tex.   276 

33,  127,  198 
Lippert  V.  Lasar  (Cal.),  33  Pac. 

797  97 

Lippman   v.   Low,    69   App.    Div. 

24  150 

Littell   V.    Miller,    8   Wash.    566      280 
Littell.    &c..    Mfg.   Co.   v.   Miller, 

3   Wash.   St.   480  26 

Little    V.    Friend.    167    Ind.    36  45 

V.  Vredenburgh,   16  111.  App. 

189  22 

Littlejohn    v.    Millirons,    7    Ind. 

125  11,   29 

Littleton   Sav.   Bank  v.  Osceola 

Land  Co.,  76   Iowa  660  25 

Livermore  v.  Wright,  33  Mo.  31      98 

Livesev  v.  Brown.  35  Neb.   Ill      149 

V.  Hamilton,  47  Neb.  644  121,  176 

Livezey    v.    Qualey.    14    Montg. 

Co.    Law    Rep'r    (Pa.)     205  123 

Livingston  v.  Mildrum,  19  N.  Y. 
440  279 

V.   Miller,   16   Abb.   Prac.    (N. 

Y.)    371  134,    151 

Lloyd   V.   Hibbs.    81   Pa.    306  110 

Lockliead   v.    Berkelev    Springs, 

.&c.,  Co.,  40  W.  Va.  553  120 

Logan  V.  Attix.  7  Iowa  77      176,  241 

v.    Dunlap,    4    111.    188  241 

V.    Taylor.    20    Iowa,    297  163 

Lomar  v.  Dore.   45  111.   379      199,   222 

Lombard  v.  Johnson.  76  111.  599 

221,    237,    261,    268 
V.   The  Trustees,   73   Ga.    323 

8,  228 
Lonergan  v.  San  Antonio  Loan 
&  Trust  Co.   (Tex.),  104  S.  W. 
1061  58 

Long  V.  Abeles  &  Co.  (Ark.).  93 
S.  W.  67  64.  144,  257 

V.    Black.    5    Pa.    Co.    Ct.    R. 

258  25 

V.  Caffery,  93  Pa.  St.  526  173 

V.  McLanahan,  103  Pa.  537  27 

V.    Pocahontas   Coal  Co.,   117 

Ala.    587  80,    120 

Long     Beach     School     Dist.     v. 

Lutge,    129    Cal.    409  134 

Longest  v.  Breden.  39  Ky.   141      219 
Long    Island    Brick    Co.    v.    Ar- 
nold,   18    R.    I.    455  27,   255 
Lonkey   v.    Cook.    15   Nev.    58  68 
V.    Wells,    16    Nev.    271 

111,    116,   297 
Loomis  V.  Fry.   91  Pa.   396  110 

Loonie    v.   Burt.    80   Tex.    582  297 

V.  Frank.  51  Tex.   406  77 

Lookout  Lumber  Co.  v.  Man- 
sion Hotel  &  B.  Ry.  Co..  109 
N.   C.    658  130 

v.   Sanford,   112   N.   C.    655  297 

Lord    V.    Chaffee,    2     Cleve.     L. 

Rep.    297  139 

Loring  v.    Flora,   24   Ark.    151 

187,   292 
V.    Small,    50    Iowa    271     10,    286 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

Lornie  v.  Hogan.  9  N.  Y.   435  32 

Los    Ang-eles    Gold-Mine    Co.    v. 

Campbell      (Colo.     App.),      56 

Pac.    246  299,    301 

Lothian    v.    Wood,    55    Cal.    159 

12,   135,   273 
Loudon  V.   Coleman,  59   Ga.   653 
9.    14 
Louisburg    v.     R.     R.      Co.,      49 

Iowa    255 
Louisiana    &    Gulf    Lumber   Co. 

V.    Myers,    87    Mo.    App.    671 

24,   116,   117 
Louisiana    Molasses    Co.    v.    Le 

Sassier,  52  La.  Ann.   2070 
Love   V.   Cox,    68   Ga.   269 
Lovett  V.  Brown.   40  N.  H.   511 
Lowber    v.     Childs,     2       E.       D. 

Smith   577 
Lowe    V.    Turner,    1    Idaho    107 
Lowenstein      v.      Reynolds,      92 

Tenn.   543  27,  49,   58 

Lowis  V.  Cutter,  6  Mo.  App.  54     117 
Lowry    v.    Svard,    8    Colo.    App. 

357  286 

Loyd  V.  Arney    (Ind.),   87   N.   E. 


95 

77 


188 
154 
165 

263 

287 


989 


148a 

57 


253 

85 


173 
251 


68 
44 


94 


V.    Krause,    147    Pa.    402 
Lucas    V.    Brockway      (Pa.),    13 
Atl.    285 
V.  Hunter,   153  Pa.   293 
V.    O'Brien.    156    Pa.    St.    536        49 
Luce    V.    Curtis,    77    Iowa    347 

274,   279 

Ludowici    Rooflng    Tile    Co.    v. 

Pennsylvania    Inst.    116    Fed. 

661 

Ludwig-   V.    Huverstuhl,    108    111. 

App.    461  35.    94, 

Lumbard   v.    Syracuse,    B.    &  N. 

Y.  R.  R.  Co.,  55  N.  Y.  494 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Purdum,  41  Ohio 

St.    374 
Lundell    v.    Ahlman,    53    Minn. 

57 
Lunt    V.    Stephens,    75    111.    507 

159,   274 
Luscher   v.    Morris,    18    Abb.    N. 

C.    (N.    Y.)    67  121 

Luter    V.    Cobb,    41    Tenn.    525 

214,    21d 
Luttrell    &    Co.     v.     Knoxville, 
&c.,    R.    Co.     (Tenn.),    105    S. 
^^.   565  6,        8 

Lutz    V.    Ey,    3    Abb.    Prac.    (N. 

Y.)    475  100,    114,    273,    298 

Lybrandt  v.   Eberly.   36   Pa.    347 

17,   124,   249,   253 
Lvdick    V.    Anderson,     188     Pa. 

'St.   600  173 

Lynam  v.  'King,  9  Ind.  3  26 

Lynch    v.    Cashman,     3      E.     D. 

Smith    (N.   Y.)    660  68 

V.  Cronan,  72  Mass.  531  122 

V.     Feigle,     11    Phila.     (Pa.) 

247  108,    109,    114 

Lyon   V.   Champion,   62   Conn.   75      25 

Lvon  V.   Elser,   72   Tex.   304      79,   131 

V.  Logan,  66  Tex.  57  249 

V.    Logan,    68    Tex.    521 

86,    136,    237,    288 
V.   McGuffev,    4    Pa.    126  140 

V.   Ozee,   66   Tex.   96  25,   41 


109 
10, 


to  Sections.] 

Lyon,  &c.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Equit- 
able Loan,  &c.,  Assn.,  174  111. 
31  176, 

M 

McAdam  v.  Bailey,  1  Phlla.  297 
McAdow     V.     Miltenberger,     75 
Mo.  App.  346  115, 

V.    Ross,    53   Mo.    199 
V.    Sturtevant,    41    Mo.    App. 
220  149, 

McAllister  v.   Case,   7  N.   Y.   600 
131, 
v.    Clopton,    51    Miss.    257 
V.    Dennis,    27    Mo.    40 
v.    Des    Rochers,    132    Mich. 
381  10,    121,    165, 

McAlpine    v.    Duncan,     16     Cal. 

126 
McAnally    v.    Glidden,    30    Ind. 
App.    22 
V.  Hawkins  Lumber  Co. 
Ala.   397 
McArthur  v.  Dewar,   3   Man.   72 

21, 
McAulev    V.    Mildrum,    1    Daly 

(N.    Y.)    396 

McAuliffe   V.   Bailie,    89    Ga.    356 

V.    Jorgenson,    107    "Wis.    132 

16, 

McBean  v.   Kinnear,  23  Ont.   R. 

313 
McBride    v.    Crawford,    1    E.    D. 
Smith    (N.  Y.)    658 
V.    Longworth,    14    Ohio    St. 
349 
McBurney    v.    Bradbury,    6    La; 

Ann.    39 
McCann    v.    Gerding,    27    Misc. 

Rep.    845 
McCants   v.    Bush,    70    Cal.    125 
McCarthy  v.  Caldwell,  43  Minn. 
442 
V.   Groff,    48   Minn.   325 
v.    Havis,    23    Fla.    508  7, 

V.    Holtman,    19     App.     Cas. 
(D.    C.)    150 
McCarty     v.     Buck,     8       Houst. 
(Del.)     34  12,   22, 

— ^v.    Burnet,    84    Ind.    23 

\  45,     141,     243. 

V.  barter,   49   111.    53     11,    29, 

V.    Vao    Etten,    4    Minn.    461 

237 

McCauley  v,   Hatfield,   28   N.   Y.' 

S.    648 
McCausland    v.     MVest     Duluth 
Land   Co.,   51   Minn.    246     164, 
McCay's    Appeal,    37    Pa.    125 

8,   112, 

McChesney  v.  Syracuse,  75  Hun 

503  65, 

McClain    v.    Hutton     (Cal.),    61 

Pac.    273  122,    155, 

V.      Hutton       131      Cal      132 

15,   16,   101, 

103,    109,    111,    112,    255, 

McClair  v.  Huddart,  6  Colo. 

App.  493 

Smith,  65  Mass. 


McClallan  v. 

2.?  8 
McClellan  v. 

503  , 


Binkley,  78  Ind. 


181 


211 

255 
210 

162 

295 

153 

16 

261 

67 

141 

246 

68 

187 
68 

135 

128 

122 

281 

57 

233 
67 

259 

97 

301 

280 

260 

255 
140 

250 

36 

257 
114 
267 
255 

261 
228 
218 
276 


lii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.1 


240 

57 


265 


79 


17 
167 


66 


McClintock   v.   Criswell,    67    Pa. 
183  24 

V.    Rush,    63    Pa.    203  103,   114 

McClurken  v.  Logan,  23  IH.   79 
McCollum  V.    Riale,   163  Pa.   603 
McConnell    v.    Bryant,     38     Ga. 
639 

V.   Hewes,    50  W.   Va.    33     19,    20 
V.    Meridian    Sasli,     &c.,     Co. 

112  Ala.   582  119 

V.  Worns,   102  Ala.   587      208,   298 
McConologue      v.      Larkins,      32 

Misc.  Rep.  166  126,   146,  211 

McCormack      v.      Butland,      191 
Mass.    424  30 

V.    Phillips,    4    Dak.    506 

122,  134,  269.  274.  284,  298 
McCormick    v.    Lawton,    3    Neb. 
449 
V.    Lo.s    Angeles    Water    Co., 

40    Cal.    185 
V.  Sadler,  21  Utah  62 
McCoskle    V.    Herman,     117     N. 

T.    297 
McCoy  V.  Quick,  30  Wis.  521 

225     228      272 
McCrary    v.    Bristol    Bank.    97 

Tenn.    469  55.    57,    68 

McCrea  v.   Craig,   23   Cal.    522 

6,   129.   130,   239 
V.    Johnson,    104    Cal.    224  165 

McCreary      v.        Waco       Lodge 

(Tex.),    2    Posey    675  8,    190 

Mc'Cree    v.     Campion,     5     Phila. 

9 
McCristal    v.    Cochran,    147    Pa. 

225  13,  122,   124 

McCue   V.   Whitwell,    156    Mass. 

205 
McCullom     V.      Richardson,     12 

Ohio  Dec.   (Re.)    440  66,  91,  147 

McCulIough  V.  Caldwell,  5  Ark. 
237  154 

V.    Caldwell,    8    Ark.    231 

129,   154 
V.  Rose,  4  111.  App.   149  283 

McCune  v.  Hatch,  18  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.    469  116 

V.    Snyder,    8    Ohio  Cir.    Dec. 

316  4 

V.    Snider,    9    Ohio   Cir.    Dec. 

572  44,    59,    110 

McDaniel  v.  Osborn,  166,  Ind  1  148a 
V.  Weaver,   14   Ind.   517  292 

McDermott  v.  Claas,  104  Mo,  14 

15,   117,   238,    259 
V.  McDonald,  50  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.   153 
V.  Palmer,  11  Barb.  (N.  Y.)   9 
McDonald    v.    Backus,     45     Cal, 

V.    City     of    New     York,     29 
Misc.    Rep.    504 
V.    Kelly,    14    R.   L    335 

157,    166,    221 
V.    Lindall,    3     Rawle     (Pa.) 

492 
V.    Minneapolis    Lumber   Co,, 

28   Minn.    262 
V.    Patterson,   186   111.   381 
V.    Patterson,    84      111.     App. 

326 
V.   Rosengarten,   35  111.  App, 

71  116,   119 


164 


49 


204 

27 

229 

7 


132 


13 

126 


275 


McDonald    v.     Ryan,     39     Minn. 

341  261 

McDonnell  v.  Nicholson,  67  Mo. 

App.    408  102,   232,   243 

McDonough   v.   Le    Rov,    1    Rob. 

(La.)    173  279 

McDougall   V.   Nast,   5  N.  Y.   St. 

144  65,    67 

McDowell      V.      Hill,      1      Phila 
(Pa.)    102  116,   246 

V.    Riley,    8    Del.    Co.    R.    181, 

16    Pa.    Super    Ct.    515     267 
V.    Rockwood,   182   Mass.   150 

74,   157 
McDuffee  V.  Rea,  13  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

R.    261  177 

McElroy  v.   Braden,   152   Pa.    78     57 
V,    Kelly,    27    R,    I.    474  85 

McElwaine    v.    Hosey,    135    Ind. 

481  43,    45 

McElwee   v.   Sandford,   53   How. 

Prac.    (N.  Y.)    89  106 

McEwen   v.  Montana  Pulp,   &c., 

Co.    (Mont,),    90    Pac.    359  97 

McFadden    v.    Stark,    58    Ark,    7 

239,   240,   249 
McFall     V.     Dempsey,     43     Mo. 

App.   369  172 

McFarland    In    re,    16    Pa.    Su- 
per.   Ct.    142  191,    292 
McFarland   v.    Schultz,    168    Pa. 

634  99,    123 

McFarlane    v.    Foley,     27     Ind. 

App.    484  45 

McGann   v,    Sloan,   74   Conn.    726      77 
McGarry    v.    Averill,     50     Kan. 

362  19 

McGee  v.   Piedmont  Mfg.   Co.,  7 

S,    Car.    263  250 

McGeever   v.    Harris    (Ala.),    41 

So,    930  31,    119,    240,    284 

McGillivray   v.    Case,    107    Iowa 
17  119,    123 

V.  District  Tp.,    96   Iowa   629 

99.    120 
McGinniss     v.     Purrington,     43 

Conn,    143  27 

McGinty    v,    Morgan,    122     Cal. 

103  111,    122 

McGlauflin   v.   Beeden,   41   Minn. 
408  101 

V.   Wormser,    28   Mont,    177 

235.   257,    296 
McGrath    v.    Donaldson,    87    111. 
App,    269  56 

V,    Horgan,  72  App.  Div.   152      49 
McGraw    v.    Bayard,    96    111.    146 

180,   197,   228 
V.     Godfrey.     16    Abb.     Prac. 

(N,  S,)   358  26,  100,  250 

V.   Godfrey,   56  N.  Y,   610  286 

V.    Storke,    44    111.    App.    311      201 
McGreary    v.     Osborne,    9     Cal.' 

119  138 

McGrew  v.  McCarty,  78  Ind.  496 

45,    82,    85,    292 
McGuckin    v.    Coulter,    10    Abb. 

Prac.    (N.  Y.)   128  124,   131,  263 

McGugin  V.  Ohio  River  Ry.  Co,, 

33    W.    Va,    63.  58 

McGuinness  v.  Boyle,  123  Mass. 

570  32 

McHale    v.    Maloney    (Neb,),    93 
N.   W.   677  287 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


liii 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


McHenry      v.       Knickerbacker, 

128    Ind.    77  45,    171 

McHug-h  V.  Slack,  11  Wash.  370 

105,  106,  112 
Mcllvain  v.  Hestonville,  &c.,  R. 

Co.,  5  Phila.   (Pa.)   13  10 

Mcintosh  V.   Schroeder,    154   111. 

520  218 

Mclntyre    v.    Trautner,    63    Cal. 
429  95 

V.    Trautner,    78    Cal.    449  301 

McKay   v.    New    York,    46    App. 

Div.  579  5,  168 

McKeage   v.    Hanover   Ins.    Co., 

81  N.   Y.   38  14 

McKee  v.   Rapp.  35  N.  Y.   S.   175      66 
McKeen  v.   Hazeltine,   46   Minn. 

426  17,    177,    178 

McKeever   v.   Albert,    4    Pa.   Co. 

Ct.   251  56 

McKelleg-et    v.    Eckhard,    4    Mo. 

App.    589  85 

MeKelvey  v.   Jarvis.   87   Pa.    414      97 
V.    Wonderly,    26    Mo.    App. 
631  232 

McKlm  V.  Mason,  3  Md.  Ch.  186 

151,    228,    232,    276,    293 
McKinney    v.    Springer,    3    Ind. 
59  219 

V.  Spring-er,  6  Blackf.   (Ind.) 

511  284 

V.  White,  15  App.  Div.  423       102 

V.   White,    162    N.    Y.    601  109 

V.  Washington,  8  W.  Va.   666    68 

McLagan   v.   Brown,   11   111.    519 

49,    129,    228 

McLane  v.  Abrams,  2  Nev.   206  8 

McLaughlin      v.    Goodchaux,    7 

La.   Ann.   101  127 

V.    Green,    48    Miss.    175  186 

v.   Perkins,    102   Cal.    502  96 

V.    ReinMart,    54    Md.    71 

34,    173,    189 
V.    Sayle,    190    Mass.    583  261 

V.    Schaughnessey,    42    Miss. 

520  243 

V.    Chawacker,    31    Mo.    App. 
365  115,    240 

V.    Schultz,    152    Mo.    469  119 

McLean    v.    Sanford,      26     App. 
Div.     (N.    Y.)     603  36,    97 

v.  Wiley,  176  Mass.  233      176,  261 
v.  Young,   2  Mac  Arthur   (D. 

C.)     184  105 

McLennan       v.       Winnipeg,       3 

Man.     474  219 

McLeod   V.   Association,   152   Pa. 
575  10 

V.  Capell,   66  Tenn.  196       56,  234 
McMahon  v.  Hodge,  2  Misc.    (N. 
Y.)     234  99 

V.  Vickery,   4  Mo.  App.  225         26 
McMechan    v.    Baker,    11    N.    Y. 

S.    781  96 

McMenomy    v.    White,    115    Cal. 

330  170,    198,   199 

McMillan    v.     Phillips,     5     Dak. 
294  56,     286 

V.    Seneca   Lake    Grape,    &c.. 
Co.,    5   Hun    (N.    Y.)    12 

67,   83 
McMongel  v.  Wilson,   103  Mich. 
264  101,    120,    121 


McMurphy     v.       Robinson,       10 

Ohio    496  81 

McMurray  v.  Brown,  91  U.  S. 
257  34 

V.      Hutcheson,       59       How. 

Prac.    (N.    Y.)    210  .      66 

V.    Taylor,    30   Mo.    263  177 

McNab,  &c.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Pater- 
son  Bldg.  Co.  (N.  J.),  63 
A.    709  18,    74,    76 

McNally     v.     Glidden,     30     Ind. 

App.    22  148a 

McNamee  v.  Hildeburn,  9  Pa. 
Co.    Ct.    267  109,    209 

V.    Rauch,    128   Ind.   59  82,    105 

McNeal    v.    Clement,    2    Thomp. 

&    C.    (N.    Y.)    363  49 

McNeal  Pipe,   &c.,    Co.   v.  How- 
land,    111    N.    Car.    615  10 
V.    Bullock,    38    Fed.    566 

10  238  242 
McNeil  V.  Borland,  23  Cal.  144  4 
McNicholas    v.    Tinsler,    127    111. 

App.    381  6,    238 

McNichols    V.     Kettner,     22    111. 

App.    493  31 

McPhee  v.   Kay,   30  Neb.   62  99 

V.   Litchfield,    145   Mass.    565      106 
McPheeters  v.  Merrimac  Bridge 

Co.,    28    Mo.    467  10 

McPherson  v.  Walton,   42   N.   J. 

Eq.   282  76.    122,   177 

McQuaid    v.    Sanford,      112      N. 

Car.    660  297 

McQuaide    v.     Stewart,     48    Pa. 

198  209,   260 

McRae  v.  Creditors,  16  La. 
Ann.    305  33 

V.    Murdoch     Campbell     Co., 

94    111.    App.    105  36 

V.     LTnlversity     (Tenn.),     52 

S.    W.     463  169,   247 

McSorley   v.    Hogan,    1   Code   R. 

(N.    Y.)    285  232 

McWilliams    v.    Allan,     45     Mo. 

573  116 

MacDonald    v.    Hayes,    132    Cal. 

490  64,  259 

MacFarlane  v.  Southern  Lum- 
ber, &c.,  Co.  (Fla.),  36  So. 
102^^.  10,     32,    67 

Machir    y.    Burroughs,    14    Ohio 

St.    519  29 

Macintosh  v.  Thurston,  25  N.  J. 

Eq.   242  164 

Mack  v.  Colleran,  136  N.  Y. 
617  58 

V.   Degraff   &c.    R.    Quarries, 
57  Ohio  St.    463  44 

MacKnight  Flintic  Stone  Co. 
V.    New    York,    176    N.    Y.    586 

65,   261 
Macomber  v.  Bigelow,   126   Cal. 

9  54,    135,   167.   275 

Macondray   v.    Simmons,    1    Cal. 

393  7 

Madden  v.  ILennon,  23  Misc. 
Rep.     79  124,     243 

V.    Lennon,    23     Misc.     Rep. 

704  257 

Maddocks        v.        McGann,         4 

Lack.    J.    34  77,    190 

Madera  Flume.  &c.,  Co.  v. 
Kendall,  120  Cal.  182  100,  123,  286 


liv 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

Magowan      v.       Stevenson,      58 

N.   J.   L.    31  79 

Mahan   v.   Brinnell    (Mo.),   67    S. 

W.   930  116 

Mahley    v.    German    Bank,    174 

N.  Y.   499  112 

Mahon    v.    Guilfoyle,    18    N.    Y. 

Supp.    93  65 

V.    Surerus,    9   N.   D.    57  6,   135 

Mahoney    v.     Butte     Hardware 

Co.,    19   Mont.    377  262 

V.    McWalters,    3    App.     Div. 

248  66,   159 

V.    McWalters,    91    Hun    247      265 
Main   Street   Hotel   Co.   v.    Hor- 

ton    Hardware    Co.,    56    Kan. 

448  6,    97,    127 

Malaney     v.      Mears,     2      Lack. 

Leg.    N.    (Pa.)    77  116 

Malbon      v.      Birney,      11      Wis. 

107  64 

Mallory    v.    Abattoir,      80     Wis. 

170  4,    18.    53,    68 

Malmg-ren  v.  Piiinney,   50  Minn. 

457  27,    161,    164,    220 

Malone    v.    Mayfleld,      13      Tex. 

Civ.   App.    548  260 

V.    Mining    Co.,    76    Cal.    578 

108.   122 
V.    Zielian,    1     Marv.      (Del.) 

285  95 

Malone's    Appeal,    79    Pa.    481 

117,   301 
Maltby    v.    Greene,      40     N.     Y. 

548  286 

Malter    v.    Falcon    M.     Co.,     18 

Nev.    209  8.    106 

Mammoth      Min.      Co.      v.      Salt 

Lake    Foundry,    &c.,    Co.,    151 

U.    S.    447  30 

Manatee      Light,      &c.,      Co.      v. 

Tampa     Plumbing,     &c.,      Co. 

(Fla.),  42  So.  703  21 

Manchester  v.  Searle,  121  Mass. 

418  33 

Mandeville    v.    Reed,     13     Abb. 

Prac.    (N.    Y.)    173  66,    85 

Maneely  v.  New  York,  119  App. 

Div.   376  64,   223,   224,   261 

Mangrum  v.  Truesdale,  128  Cal. 

145  169 

Manhattan    Life    Ins.       Co.       v. 

Paulison,    28    N.   J.    Ea.    304        129 
Manly      v.    Downing,    15      Neb. 

637  117,   225 

Mann  v.   Schroer,    50   Mo.    306       220 
Manny   v.    National   Surety   (jo., 

(Mo.)      78     S.     W.     69  184,   185 

Manor  v.   Heffner,   15  Ind.  App. 

299  216,   239,   301 

Mantonya  v.  Reillv,  83  111.  App. 

275  64,      74 

v.   Reilly,   184  111.   183 

65.  74.   127,   299 
Manufacturing   Co.    v.    Falls,    90 

Tenn.  466  4,      68 

Marble    v.    Jones,    etc.    Lumber 

Co..    19    Neb.    732  98 

Marble   Lime   Co.    v.   Lordsburg 

Hotel   Co.,   96   Cal.   332 

204,   262,   269.   270 
Marchant  v.  Hayes,  120  Cal.  137 

96.   198 
Marean  v.  Stanley,  5  Colo.  App. 

335  174 


to  Sections.] 

Mark  v.  Murphy,  76  Ind.  534 

82,   148a 
Markley      v.    Michael,    8      Dec. 

(Re.)    269  81 

Mark  Paine  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Douglas  County  Imp.  Co.,  94 
Wis.   322  123,   236 

Marks  v.  Pence,  31  Wash.  426       278 
Marlatt      v.    Hascall,    13      Ohio 

Dec.  364  44,      81 

Marmillon  v.   Archinard,  24  La. 

Ann.   610  130,   159 

Maroni  v.  Junty,   26  R.  I.   109       116 
Marquette  Opera  House  &c.  Co. 

V.   Wilson,    109   Mich.    223  170 

Marrener     v.   Paxton,    17      Neb. 

634  21 

Marryatt    v.    Riley,    2    Abb.    N. 

C,    (N.    Y.)    119  94,   197 

Mars   v.   McKay,    14   Cal.    127  90 

Marshall  v.  Bank  of  Archie,  76 
Mo.  App.  92  238 

V.     Cohen,     11       Misc.       Rep. 

397  35 

V.   Kranskop,  18  Lane.    (Pa.) 

388  182 

Marski    v.    Simmerling,    46    111. 

App.    531  57,      64 

Marston    v.    Kenyon,    44    Conn. 

349  85,    121,   136 

V.   Stickney,  60  N.  H.   112  27 

Martin    In   re.,    4    Fed.    208  94 

Martin    v.    Berry,    159    Ind.    566 

201,    216,   287 
V.   Burns,   54   Kan.   641  119 

V.    Campbell,    6    Mackey    (D. 

C.)  296  99 

V.     Flahive,     112    App.     Div. 

347  111,   239,   257 

V.  Morgan,    64   Iowa   270  67 

V.   Roberts,  57  Fed.  364 

4,    23,      41 
V.   Simmons,   11   Colo.    411  105 

V.   Swift,   120  111.  488 

182,    183,   297 
V.    Texas    Briquette    &    Coal 
Co..   (Tex.)    77  S.  W.   651 

157,   162 
V.  "W'arren.   109  Mich.   584  200 

Martine   v.   Nelson,   51    111.    422       31 
Martin   Lumber  Co.  v.   Howard, 

49  Minn.   404  27,      42 

Martsolf    v.    Barnwell,    15    Kan. 

612  156,   160 

Maryland  Brick  Co.  v.  Dunker- 
ly,  85  Md.  199  98,   109,   135 

V.   Spilman,   76   Md.  337      136,   178 
Mason    v.     Gass,     62     Mo.     App. 
449  189 

V.    Germaine,    1    Mont.    263 

167,   296 
V.   Heyward,   5   Minn.   74 

237,  276 
Masow    V.    Fife,    10    Wash.    528 

32,   141 
Mathews  v.  Daley.  7  Abb.  Prac. 
(N.    S.)    (N.   Y.)    379  131 

V.   Heisler,    58   Mo.   App.    145 

212,   232 
Mathiasen    v.    Barkin,    62    App. 
Div.    614  95 

V.    Shannon,    25    Misc.    274 

182,    184,    236,   292 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Iv 


[References  are 

Mathwig  V.  Mann,   96   Wis.   213   161 
Marvin  v.   Taylor,  27   Ind.  73 

216,   225 

Matlack  v.   Deal,   1  Miles    (Pa.) 

254  188 

V.  Lare,  32  Mo.  262  71,   104 

Matthews   In  re.,   109   Fed.   603     160 

Matthews  v.  Monts,  61  S.  C.  385 

74,    237,    239,   288 
V.    Wag-enhaeuser     Brewing 

Ass'n.,    83    Tex.     604  99 

V.    Young-,    40    N.    Y.    S.    26  173 

Matthiesen     v.     Arata,     32     Ore. 

342  12,   235 

Mauch    Chunck    v.     Shartz,       61 

Pa     St.  9 

Mauck   V.    Rosser,    126   Ga.    268      198 
Maulsburv  v.  Simpson,  11  Phlla. 

(Pa.)     196  182 

Maurer    v.    Bliss,    14    Daly,     (N. 

Y.)    150  115.    123,    273 

Maxey  v.  Larkin,  2  E.  D.  Smith 

(N.     Y.)     540  198 

Maxon  v.  School  Dist.,  5  Wash. 

142  200 

Maxwell  v.  Koeritz,  35  111.  App. 

300  80,   272 

Mav    V.    Creasi,    8    Kulp,     (Pa.) 

360  124 

Mav  etc.  Brick  Co.  v.  General 
Engineerings  Co.,  76  111.  App. 
380  121.   123 

V.    General   Engineering  Co., 

180    111.    535  112,   123 

May   etc.    Hardware   Co.   v.   Mc- 

Connell,    102    Ala.    577         200,    292 
Maver  v.  Killilea,   63  App.  Div. 
318  66 

V.    Mutchler,    50    N.    J.    Law 
162  66 

V.   Murphy,    93   Mo.   App.    37      103 
V.    Ruffners,    8    W.    Va.    384 

8,   80,   118 
Mavnard   v.    East,    13    Ind.    App. 
432  82,    104,    216 

V.    Ivev,    21    Nev.    241 

108,    109,   122    I 

Mayor    v.    Collins,    11    111.    App.  j 

058  278    I 

Mayi-hofer  v.   Board   of   Educa-  : 

tion,   89   Cal.   110  10    I 

Meade  Plumbing  etc.  Co.  v.   Ir-  I 

win,    (Neb.)    109   N.  W.   391  26    1 

Mead's    Appeal,    46    Conn.    417        192    ' 

Mears    v.    DIckerson,    2      Phila.  i 

(Pa.)    19  53    1 

V.    StubbP.    45    Iowa    675  74 

Mechanic's    Lien   Law,    In    re.    7 

Ohio   N.    P.    658  4,        5 

Mechanics'  Mut.  Loan  Co.  v.  Al- 

berts-on,    23    N.    J.    Eq.    318  55 

Mechanics'   Planing-  Mill    Co.    v. 

Nast,  7  Mo.  App.   147  90 

Mechanics'  &c.  Bank  v.  Winant, 

123    N.    Y.    265  66 

Mechanics'  Mill  etc.  Co.  v. 
Denny  Hotel  Co.,  6  Wash.  122 

20,    90,    120.    130,   158 
Meehan  v.  St.  Paul  etc.  Ry.  Co., 
83   Minn.    187  123 

V.   Williams,   2   Daly    (N.   Y.) 

367  187,    226.    274 

V.    Zeh,    77    Minn.    63  209 


to   Sectio^iS.I 

Meek    V.    Parker,    63    Ark.    367 

11,    14,    136,    176,    177 
Meeks   v.   Sims,   84   111.   422 

177,    188,    218,   229 
Mehl    V.    Carey,    21    Pa.    Co.    Ct. 
R.    275  57 

V.    Fisher,    13    Pa.    Super.   Ct. 

330  74,  267 
Mehrle  v.  Dunne,  75  111.  239 

128,  144,   229 
Meinholz    v.    Grodt,    4    Mo.    App. 

568  272 

Meistrell  v.   Reach,   56  Mo.  App. 

243  138 

Meixell    v.    Grist,    1    Kan.'  App. 

145  85,   136 

Mellor  V.  Valentine,  3  Colo.  255 

26,   129,    130,    140 
Menefee  v.  Beverforden,  95  Mo. 

App.    105  258 

Menner  v.  Nichols,    (Pa.)    8  Atl. 

647  264 

Mentzer    v.    Peters,     6       Wash. 

540  143,   292 

Menzel   v.    Tubbs,    51    Minn.    364 

136,    204,    243,    297,   301 
Merced   Lumber   Co.   v.  Bruschi, 

(Cal.)    92   P.   844  57,   292 

Mercer  Milling-  etc.  Co.  v. 
Kreaps,    18   Pa.   Super.    Ct.    1 

105,   117 
Merchand  v.  Cook,  4  G.  Greene. 

(Iowa)    115  219 

Merchant  v.  Humeston,  2  Wash. 
T.    433  ,  115 

V.     Ottumwa    Water    Power 

Co..    54    Iowa    451  167 

V.    Perez,    11    Tex.    20  25 

Merchants  etc.  Bank  v.  Da- 
shiell,    25    Grat.    (Va.)    616 

33,    48,      80 
V.    Hollis,     (Tex.)     84    S.    "W. 

269  103,    120 

Merchant.s'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mazange, 

22    Ala.    168  275 

Meridian  Nat'l  Bank  v.  Mc- 
Conica.  4  Cir.  Dec.  106,  8  C. 
C.   442  81 

Merric^k    v.    Bourv,    4    Ohio    St. 

60"    -  -  81 

Merrigan    v.    English,    9    Mont. 

113  43,  53,  54,   246 

Merriman  v.  Bartlett,  34  Minn. 
524  22 

V.    .lones,    43    Minn.    29  58 

Merritt  v.  Crane  Co.,  225  111. 
181  32,    55.    126,    250.    255,   257 

V.    Hopkins,    96    Iowa    652 

57,    67,    68,      76 
V.    Pearson,    58    Ind.    385 

45,    82,    126,    181,    241,   260 
V.   Pearson.    76   Ind.   44  126 

Mertens   v.    Cassini    Mosaic   etc. 

Co.,    53    W.    Va.    192  103 

Mervin     v.     Sherman,     9       Iowa 

331  178,  179,  224 
Mesker  v.  Cutler.  51  Mo.  341  114 
Messersmith     In    re.,    1    Daiiph. 

Co.    Rep.    (Pa.)    223  103 

Metz  V.  Lowell.  83  111.  565  75 
Motzger  v.  McCann,  92  111.  App. 

109  136 
Mever     v.     Berlandi,     39     Minn. 

438                                               '4,    8,  74 


Ivi 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

V.   Broadwell.    83  Mo.    571  31 

V.     Christian,     64     Mo.     App. 

203  74,      77 

V.  Seebald.  11  Abb.  Prac.   (N. 

y.)    326  263 

Meyer  Bros.  Drug-  Co.  v. 
Brown,    46    Kan.    543  27 

V.    Bennett.    7    Daly    (N.    Y.) 

471  25 

V.    Le    Poidevin,    9    Neb.    535, 

4    N.    W.     319  212 

V.    Wood,     (Tex.)     65    S.    W. 
671  113,    117,   185.   247 

Miciiael      v.    Reeves,    14      Colo. 

App.    460  14 

Michaelis  v.   Wolf,   136   111.   6S        200 
Michigan  Savings  etc.  Ass'n.  v. 
Attebery,     (Tex.)     42     S.     W. 
569  211 

Midland    Lumber    Co.    v.    Kree- 

ger.    52    Mo.    App.    418  122 

Middleton  v.  Davis-Ranke 
Bldg.  etc.  Co.,  (Ky.)  45  S.  W. 
896  223 

Middleton    Sav.    Bank      v.    Fel- 

lowes.    42    Conn.    36  164 

Milam  v.   Bruffee,   6   Mo.   635  277 

Miles    V.    Coutts,    20    Mont.    42 

49,   269 
Miles    Co.    V.    Gordon,    8    Wash. 

442  141 

Millandon  v.  New  Orleans  Wa- 
ter  Co.,    11    Mart.    (O.    S.)    278      41 
Millard  v.  West,   50  Iowa  616        163 
Mill    Co.    v.    Alisoli,    50    Mo.    50     114 
Miller  In  re.,  177  Pa.  St.  168  158 

V.  Anne,  17  Lane.  Law,  Rev. 

(Pa.y    312  31 

V.   Barroll.   14   Md.   173 

26.  74,  197,  212,  259 
V.  Batchelder.  117  Mass.  179  98 
V.   Bedford,    86    Pa.    454  114 

V.    Brigot,    8    La.    533  66 

V.  Calumet  Lumber  etc.  Co., 
121    111.    App.    56 

64,  76.  197,  257.  271 
V.    Calumet   Lumber   &   Mfg. 

Co..    Ill   111.   App.    651  64 

V.    Carlisle,    127    Cal.    327 

212  284 
V.  Condit,  52  Minn.  455  14,'  204 
V.   Diffenbach,   10  Lane.  Bar. 

(Pa.)    144  301 

V.    Faulk.    47    Mo.    262  101 

V.   Fosdick,   26   Ind.  App.   293 

45,   216,   269 
V.    Heath,    22    Pa.    Super.    Ct. 

313  99,   105 

V.  Hershev.  59  Pa.   64  12 

V.  Hoffman,  26  Mo.  App.  199 

85.    94.   243 
V.     Hollingsworth,     33     Iowa 

224  197 

V.  Isear,  99  N.  Y.  Supp.  869      261 
V.   Mead.    127   N.    Y.    544  35 

V.    Mercier.    3    Mart.    (N.    S.) 

(La.)     229  41 

V.    McDuffee.    12    Pa.    Co.    Ct. 

R.   381  85 

V.  McKeon,  15  App.  Div.   133   185 
V.  Moore,   1   E.  D.  Smith,    (N. 

Y.)   739  177 

V.   Neelev,    59   Nebr.    539  35 


to  8ections.'\ 

Miller  v.  Norcross,  92  App.  Div. 
352 
V.  Oliver,  8  Watts   (Pa.)    514 
V.   Reynolds.  5   Mart.    (N.   S.) 

(La.)    665 
V.   Roseboom,   59  Ind.    345 
V.  Schaefer,  75  111.  App.  389 
V.    Schmitt,    67    N.    Y.    Supp. 
1077  11, 

V.   Schmitt.   5  Misc.   Rep.   231 
V.    Seal,    71    Iowa    392 
V.    Shepard,    50   Minn.    268 
V.    Stoddard,    54    Minn.    486 

157, 

V.  Ticknor.  7  111.  App.  393 

V.    "Whitelaw,    28    Mo.    App. 

639  47,     94,     117, 

V.   Wilkinson,   167    Mass.    136 

V.    Youmans,    13    Misc.    Rep. 

59 

Miller    Hardwood    Lumber    Co. 

V.  Wilson,  56  Ark.  380 
Miller  Lumber  Co.  v.  Oliver,  65 

Mo.    App.     435 
Milligan   v.   Hill,  4   Phila.    (Pa.) 

52 
Millikin   v.   Armstrong,    17    Ind. 
456  45,    82.    130, 

Mills  v.  Heeney,   35  111.  173 

v.    La    Verne    Land      Co.,    97 

Cal.    254 
V.    Matthews,    7    Md.    315 
V.   Paul,    (Tex.)    30   S.  W.  558 
58,   196, 
V.   Terry  Mfg.   Co.,   91   Tenn. 
469 


Millsap    V.    Ball, 
Milner   v.    Norris, 


30    Neb.     728 

126, 

13    Minn.    455 

157,     158, 

Miltimore      v.    Nofziger      Bros. 

Lumber    Co.,     (Cal.)     90    Pac. 

114 

Milwain    v.    Sanford,    3      Minn. 

147 
^Milwaukee   Mechanics'   Inv.   Co. 

V.    Brown,    3    Kan.    App.    225 
Mindeman  v.  Douville,  112  "VVis. 

413 
Mineah  v.   Stotts,  107  N.  W.   425 
Miner   v.    Hoyt,    4    Hill    (N.    Y.) 
193 
V.    Moore,    53    Tex.    224 
Ming    Yue    v.    Coos    Bay       etc. 
Nav.   Co..   24  Ore.   392  197. 

Minneapolis  Trust  Co.  v.  Great 
Northern    Ry.    Co.,    74    Minn. 
30 
V.    Maxfleld,     (Minn.)     S3    N. 
W.    463 
Minnich  v.  Darling,  8  Ind.  App. 

539 
Minor  v.   Marshall.   6   N.   M.    194 
8,  106.  119, 
Mississippi      Planing      Mill      v. 
Presbvterian   Church,    54   Mo. 
520 
Mis.soula      Mercantile      Co.      v. 
O'Donell.    24    Mont.    65 

14.   106,   107,  122.   223,  232, 
Missouri    Central    Lumber    Co. 
v.     Sedalia    Brewing    Co.,    78 
Mo.    App.    230 


261 
12 

68 
239 
235 

136 

182 
274 
136 

161 
269 

126 
97 

184 

27 

229 

114 

179 
274 

165 
153 

241 

21 

214 
299 

146 

176 

166 

4? 
31 

66 

25 

237 

97 

96 

269 

249 

lis 

261 
85 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ivii 


[Refereyiccs  are  to  Sections.] 


V.     Sullivan,     1       Mont. 
V.  Smith,  7  Ind.  App. 


Missouri    Fire    Clay    Works    v. 

Ellison,    30   Mo.    App.    67  IGl 

Missouri  River  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Finance  Co.  of  Iowa,  93  Iowa 
640  99 

Missouri  Val.  Cut  Stone  Works 
V.  Brown,  50  Mo.  App.  407 

13,      15 
Missouri  Valley  Lumber   Co.   v. 
Reid,    4    Kan.    App.    4  164 

V.   Weber,    43    Mo.  App.    179      119 
Mitchel    V.    Evans,    2      Browne 
(Pa.)    329  161 

V.  Martin,  3  Pittsb.  R.   (Pa.) 

474  124 

V.  Penfield,  8  Kan.  186  111 

Mitchell    Planing    Mill    Co.      v. 
Allison,    138    Mo.    50      80,   108,   112 
V.    Allison,    71    Mo.    App.    251 

112,   116 
Mitchell    Vance    Co.    v.    Daiker, 

19   N.   Y.    Supp.   378  27 

Mivelaz  v.  Johnson.  30  Ky.  Law 

389  103,   176 

Mix    V.    Ely,    2    G.    Greene    (la.) 

513  34,    218,    227 

Mochon 

473 
Moelerin 

451  "        297 

Monaghan       v.       Goddard,       173 

Mass.    468  260,   266 

Monroe    v.    Hannan,    7    Mackey 

(D.    C.)    197  58 

Monroe  v.  Hanson,  47  Neb.  30 

218,   225 
Monroe  v.  West,   12  Iowa  119 

27,   129,   275 

Montana    Lumber    etc.      Co.      v. 

Obelisk    Mining    etc.    Co..    15 

Mont.  20  106,   119, 

Montandon   v.    Deas,    14   Ala.   33 

11,    33,    49.    150,    176r-45 
Monteith      v.    Evans,    5    N.      Y 

Super.    Ct.    65 
Montello  Brick  Works  v.  Hoot, 

19    Montg.    (Pa.)    188 
Montgomery  v.  Allen,    (Ky.)    53 
S.   W.   813  6,   155 

V.  Keystone  Fibre  Co.,  1  Pa. 

Super.    Ct.    261  186 

Montgomery    Iron      Works      v. 

Dorman,     78     Ala.     218  237 

Monticello    Bank    v.    Sweet,    64 

Ark.    502  155 

Montpelier  Co.  v.  Stephenson, 
22   Ind.    App.   175 

45,  148a.  207,  235 
Montrose  v.  Conner,  8  Cal.  344  105 
Moody    V.    Tschabold,    52    Minn. 

51    ■  164 

Mooney   v.   Peck,    49   N.   J.   Law 

232  259 

Moore  v.  Bracken,   27  IlL   23  274 

V.    Carter,    146    Pa.    492 

49.  189.  267,  268 
V.  Culbertson.  3  Walk.  448  209 
V.   Dugan,    179    Mass.    153 

49,  66,  221,  270 
V.    Erickson,    158    Mass.    71 

55       65 
V.  Jackson.    49   Cal.   109  '     30 

V.    McLaughlin,    66    Hun    133 

118,  120,   296 


Moore   v.    McLaughlin,    11    App. 
Div.   477  30 

V.    Parish,   58   111.   App.    617 
V.    Parrish,    163    111.    93      100 
V.  Parrish.  50  111.  App.  233    ' 
V.  Protestant  School  Dist.     5 

Man.  49 
V.    Vaughn,    42    Neb.     696 

Moorehouse,   In   re.,   13    Ont     r' 

Moores    v.    Wire,    8    La.      Ann. 

Moran  v.   Chase.   52  N    Y    346 
V.   Murray  Hill   Bank,'  58   N 
Y.   Super.  Ct.  199  177' 

V.    Schnugg,    Fed.    Cas.    No." 

Moran    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Clarke     59 

Mmn.    456 

Morbray  V.   Levy,   85   App.   Div. 

296 

More  V.  Ruggles,  15  Wis.  275    ' 

Morehouse    v.    Collins,    23      Or. 

V.    Mouldiny,    74    111.    322 

64,    67, 
Moreno    v.    Spencer,     (Tex.)     82 
S.   W.   1054 

Morgan      v.    Arthurs,    3     Watts 
(Pa.)     140 

V.  Beuthein,   10  S.   Dak.   650 
V.    Bloecker,    6    Pa.    Dist     R 
659  140. 

V.   Stevens,   6  Abb.  N.   C.    (N 
Y.)    356 

25,  128,   204,  247, 
V.    Taylor,   15   Daly   304 

113,    121,   204. 
Moritz    V.    Larsen,    70    "Wis.    569 
253,  266, 
V.   Splitt,  55  Wis.   441 

Moroney's  Appeal,  24  Pa.   372 
~Mocowski     V.     Rohrig,     4     Misc. 

Rep. -iML 
Morris  v.  L^oWsviU e_^  etc.  R.  Co., 
123_Xml.    489 
V.     Montgomery.     (Tex.)        2 

Posey,  Unrep.  Cas.  385 
V.   Ogle.   56   Ga.   592 
V.    Ross,    184   Pa.    St.    241 
V.    Tharle,    24    Ont.    159 
V.  "Willits,   29  Neb.  569 
V.    Wilson,    97    Cal.    644        10, 
Morris  County  Bank  v.   Rocka- 
way    Mfg.    Co..     14    N.    J.    En. 
189  19,    20,    21,    117,    154, 

Morrison      v.        Carey-Lombard 
Co.,    0    Utah    70  94, 

V.       Clark,     (Utah)     59      Pac. 
235  24, 

V.   Hancock,    40   Mo.    561      20, 
V.   Henderson,    126   Pa.    216 
V.    Minot,    87    Mass.    403 
V.    Philippi,    35    Minn.    192 
V.    Whaley,    16    R.    I.    715 
Morrison   etc.  Co.  v.  Willard.  17 
Utah   306  111, 

Morrow    v.    Corcoran,    9    Kulp, 
(Pa.)    314 

v.  Merritt,   16  Utah  412 
Morse  v.  Dole,  73  Me.   351     156. 
V.  School  Dist.,  85  Mass.  307 


116 
113 
213 

10 

143 

75 

67 
85 

204 

161 

244 

284 
284 

261 

128 
261 

14 

142 

234 

301 

297, 

268 
110 
160 

252 

126 

240 

245 

57 

75 

262 

41 

161 
146 

31 

53 
109 

56 
106 

58 

123 

103 

143 

157 

30 


Iviii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

Morse-Williams      Co.    v.      Ellis, 

1  7*^    Afjiss     '^ 7 S  ^97 

Morfon  v.  fucker.  145  N.  Y.   244   185    I 

Morton  Lumber  Co.  v.  Driving- 
Park  Ass'n.,   64  Mo.  App.   377      181 

Mosher  v.  Lewis,  10  Misc.  Rep. 
373  12.     27,      33 

V.   Lewis,    14   App.    Div.    565      143 

Mosier  v.  Flanner-Miller  Lum- 
ber Co.,    66   111.   App.   630  223 

Moss  V.  Greenberg,  3  Pa.  Di.st. 
R.   247  56 

Mouat   V.   Fisher,   104  Mich.    262 

90,   150 

Mouat  Lumber  etc.  Co.  v.  Free- 
man.   7    Colo.    App.    152  112 

Mountain  City  Market  House 
etc.  Ass'n.  v.  Kearns,  103  Pa. 
403  26,   105 

Mountain  Electric  Co.  v.  Miles, 
9   X.   M.   512  132,    140,   177,   179 

Mowrv  V.  Hill,  14  R.  I.  504  75 

Moxley  V.   Shepard,    3   Cal.    64        144 

Moynahan  v.  Moore,   9  Mich.  9      191 

Mr  as   V.    Duff.    11   Wash.    36  111 

Mt.  Tacoma  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cultum, 
5  Wash.   294  103 

:Mufnv  V.  Karchnak,  8  Kulp 
(Pa.)     278  115 

MuMoon  V.  Pitt,  4  Daly  rX.  Y. ) 
105  24,      26 

Mulcahy  v.  Buckley,  100  Cal. 
484  299,   301 

Mull  V.  Jones,  18  X.  Y.  Supp. 
359  65.    110,   205 

Muller  V.  McLaughlin,  (Tex.) 
84    S.    W.    687  66 

Mulligan  v.  Mulligan,  18  La. 
Ann.  20  7,      16 

V.   Vreeland,   88   Hun.    183  230 

Mulliken  v.  Harrison,  44  So. 
426  56 

Lawrence.    31       Mo. 

90.   284 
Barrow,     93       Mass. 


Mulloj' 

583 
Mulrev 

152  25,   159 

Mulrine    v.   Washington   Lodge, 

(Del.)    6    Houst.    350  22.      95 

Mulvane      v.    Chicago      Lumber 

Co..   56   Kan.    675  27,   135 

Munger   v.    Curtis,    42    Hun    (N. 

Y.)    465  159 

V.     Green,     20     Ind.     38     252.   283 

V.    Silsbee,    64   Pa.    454       "    "'   267 
Munroe    v.    Merrell,     113    Mich. 

491  179 

Munster   v.    Doyle,    50    111.    App. 

672  243,    252,   255 

Murdock    v.    Hillyer,       45       Mo. 
App.    287  200 

V.   Jones.   3   App.   Div.   221  297 

Murphev-Hardv       Lumber      Co. 

V.    Nicholas,    66   N.    J.    L.    414        55 
Murphv    V.    Buckman,    66    N.    Y. 
297  49 

V.    Cappeau.   147    Pa.    45  246 

V.     Cicero    Lumber    Co..       97 

Til.   App.   510  33,      34 

V.    Ellis,    11    Pa.    Co.    Ct.    R. 

301  57 

V.  Fleetford.  (Tex.)  70  S. 

T^.'.  989  19,  20,  259 

V.  Guisti,  22  R.  I.  588 

121,    236,    237,   250 


to  Sections.l 

Murphy  v.  Guisti,  26  R.  I.  306  123 
V.  Hussa,  (N.  J.)  57  A.  388  33 
V.    Morton,    139    Pa.    345  57 

V.    Murphy.    22    Mo.   App.    18      122 
V.     Valk,     30     S.     Car.     262 

119,   298 
V.  Watertown,  112  App.  Div. 

670  65,    258,   287 

Murray   v.   Earle,   13   S.   Car.   87     173 

V.  Garety,  11  N.  Y.  Supp.  212   205 

V.  Harris,  57  111.  App.  351  100 

v.    Rapley,    30    Ark.    568 

100,    198,   199 
V.    Swanson,    18    Mont.    533 

157,   299 
V.  Sweeney,  48  La.  Ann.  760        33 
Murta    V.     Stephenson,     12     Pa. 

Co.   Ct.   R.   653  99,   112 

Mushlett    V.    Silverman,     50    N. 

Y.  360  8,   220 

Mustin    V.    Vanhook,    3    Whart. 

(Pa.)    574  281 

Muto    V.    Smith.    175    Mass.    175 

103,   121 
Mutual    Aid    Bldg.    etc.    Co.    v. 
Gashe,    56   Ohio   St.    273 

44,   143,  147,   164 
Mutual    Ben.    Life    Ins.    Co.    v. 
Rowand,    26    N.    J.    Eq.    389 

16,  '130,    161.    220,   277 
Mutual    Life    Ins.    Co.    v.    Wall- 
ing.   51    N.   J.    Eq.  99,   164 
Myer   v.   Gleisner,   7  Wis.    55  299 
Myers    v.    Maverick,    (Tex.)    27 
S.    W.    1083  33 

N 

Nancolas      v.    Hitaffer,     (Iowa) 

112  N.  W.  382  10,   64,   122 

Xanz   v.   Cumberland   Gap  Park 

Co.,    103   Tenn.    299  8,      15 

Xary  v.  Henni,   45  Wis.   473  250 

Xash      v.      Commonwealth,    174 

Mass.    335  168,    171,   172 

V.     Southwick,     120    N.    Car. 

459  43 

Xashua    Trust    Co.    v.    Edwards 

Mfg.   Co..    99   Iowa   109  224 

Xason  V.  Xorthwestern  Milling 

etc.  Co.,  17  TVash.   142  129,   247 

Xason  Ice-Mach.  Co.  v.  Upham, 

26    App.    Div.    420  14 

Xason    Mfg.    Co.    v.      Jefferson 

&r-.   Hospital,   12   Phlla.    (Pa.) 

48.*^  99 

Xational   Bank  v.   Danforth,    80 

Ga.   55  151,   152 

V.  Sprague,  20  N.   J.   Eq.   13        33 
V.    T\Ml!iams,    38    Fla.    305  140 

Xational   Co.   v.   Stranahan,   161 

Ind.    602  45,      82 

Xational  Foundry  Co.  v.  Oconto 

Water  Co..  52   Fed.   43  10,   278 

Xational      Home      Building   &c. 

Ass'n.    v.    McAllister,    64      111. 

App.    143  13,   113 

Xational  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ayres, 

111  Iowa  200  12,      98 

Xational    Lumber    Co.    v.    Bow- 
man,   77    Iowa    706 

105,   153,   179 
Xational    Mortgage    etc.    Co.    v. 

Hutchinson  Mfg.  Co.,    6   Kan. 

App.    673  130 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


lix 


[References  are  to  Sections.l 


National  Transit  Co.  v.  Weston, 

121  Pa.    485 
National    Wall      Paper      Co.    v. 

Sire,   163  N.   Y.   122  35, 

National   Wall   Paper  Co.'s   Ap- 
peal,   15   Pa.   Super.   Ct.    407 
Naughten    v.     Palmer,     46       111. 

App.   574 
Naughton    etc.    Slate       Co.       v. 

Nicholson,   97   Mo.   App.   332 
Navlor    v.    Smith,    63    N.    J.    L. 

596 
Nazareth   Literary   &     Benevo- 
lent Inst.  V.  Lowe,  40  Ky.  257 
Neal  V.  Smith,  49  Mo.  App.  328 
Neeley      v.    Searight,    115      Ind. 

316 

56,    58,   82,    116,    239, 
Neher    v.     Crawford,    10    N.    M. 

725  280, 

Neihaus    v.    Morgan,     (Cal.)     45 

Pac.    255  108,    115, 

Neil   V.   Kinney,    11   Ohio   St.    58 

147, 

Neilson    v.     Iowa    Eastern       R. 

Co.,  44  Iowa  71  158, 

Neith  Lodge   v.  Vordenbaumen, 

111   La.    213 
Nellis   V.    Bellinger,    6   Hun    (N. 

T.)    560 
Nelson  v.  Campbell,  28  Pac.  156 
V.    Cove,    47    Iowa    250 
-    V.    Sykes.   44   Minn.    68 
V.    Withrow,     14     Mo. 

270 
Nelson    Bennett      Co.    v. 

Falls  Land    etc.    Co.,    (Idaho) 

93    Pac.    789 
Nelson    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Mann,    24 

Ky.    L.    1547 
Nenez    v.    Neuner,     (Tenn.)     47 

La.    Ann.    275 
Ness  V.  Davidson,   49  Minn.   469 

V.  Wood,   42   Minn.   427 
Neuchatel    Asphalt    Co.    v.    New 

York.    9    Misc.    Rep.    376 
Neuman  v.  Grant,   36  Mont.   77 
New    V.    Carroll,    73    Hun    564 
Newark  Lime  &c.  Co.  v.  Morri- 
son, 13  N.  J.   Eq.   133  162, 
Newcomer      v.    Hutchings,       96 

Ind.    119  65, 

Newell   V.    Campbell  Mach.   Co., 

17    R.    I.    74  71, 

V.    Haworth,    66    Pa.    363 
New    Ebenezer    Ass'n.    v.    Gress 

Lumber   Co.,   89   Ga.    125 

40,    67, 
New   England    Engineering  Co. 

V.    Oakwood    St.    Ry.    Co.,    75 

Fed.  162  4, 

Newhall  v.   Ka.sten.s,    70   111.    156 
Newhoiise   v.    Morgan,    127   Ind. 

436  56,    82, 

New    Jersey    Building    etc.    Co. 

V.  Bachelor,  54  N.  J.  Eq.   600 
New    Jersey    Steel    etc.    Co.    v. 

Robinson,    74    App.    Div.    481 

64, 

V.    Robinson,    85    App.    Div. 

(N.    Y.)     412         102,   109, 

V.   Robinson,    83   N.    Y.    Supp. 

455 

Newman  v.  Brown,  27  Kan.  117 


App. 
Twin 


281 
36 
22 
74 
97 

209 

153 
116 

45 
246 

299 

272 

163 

129 

184 

35 

132 

56 

6 

122 

269 

68 

8" 
139 

27 

220 
117 

58 

279 

254 

75 
26 

260 

95 
58 

254 

164 

245 

121 

121 
123 


Newman    v.   Jefferson   City  etc. 

Ry.    Co.,    19    Mo.   App.    100 

V.    Levy,    84    Hun    478 

Newport    etc.    Lumber    Co.      v. 

Lichtenfeldt,      24      Ky.    Law. 

1969  235, 

Newport     WTiarf     etc.     Co.       v. 

Drew,   125  Cal.   584  195, 

New  York  etc.  Terra  Cotta  Co. 

V.   Williams,   184  N.   Y.   579 
New   York   Elevator  etc.    Co.   v. 

Bremer,    74    App.    Div.    400 

New    York   Lumber   etc.    Co.    v. 

Schneider,     15     Daly     (N.    Y.) 

15 

V.    Seventy-Third    St.    Bldg. 

Co.,  5  App.  Div.  87      182, 

New    York    &c.    Ceiling    Co.    v. 

Kiernan,    73'  N.    J.    L.    763 

Nibbe   v.   Brauhn,   24   111.   268 

Nice  V.   Walker,   153  Pa.   St.   123 

Nichols  V.  Culver,  51  Conn.   177 

97.    115, 

V.    Hill,    6    Thomp.   &   C.    (N. 

Y.)    335 
V.   Langworthy,   3  G.  Greene 
(Iowa)    341 
Nicholson    v.    Nichols,    115      N. 

■Car.    200 
Nicholstone  Citv  Co.  v.  Smalley, 

(Tex.)   51  S.  W.  52Z 
Nickel    V.    Blanch,    67    Md.    456 
Nicolai  v.  Van  Fridagh,  23  Ore. 

149 

Niswander  v.   Black,   50  W.  Va. 

188  55.    102,     116, 

Nixon  V.  Cydon  Lodge,  56  Kan. 

298   6,  7,  58,  64,  116,  117,  130. 

Noar   V.    Gill,    111   Pa.    488 

204,    257, 
Noerenberg      v.      Johnson, 
-,_Minn.    75 

Nola,n     V.     Gardner,     4     E. 
Smith    (N.  Y.)   727 
V.    Warren,    n-  Dist.     (J'a,.) 

561 

Nolander    v.  ^urns,    48    Minn. 

Nolans    v.    Whitney,    l8~~N7-^^ 

648 
Noll     V.     Kenneally,     37       Neb. 

879  80,     112,     113,     167, 

V.     Swineford,     6    Pa.     187 

108, 
Nolt    V.    Crow,     22     Pa.     Super. 

Ct.    113  154, 

Nolte      V.    Creditors,    6      Mart. 

(N.     S.)      (La.)     168         41,     67, 
Norcott       V.       First  Baptist 

Church,    8    Hun    (N.    Y.)    639 
Nordine    v.    Knutson,    62    Minn. 

264 
Nordvke    v.    Dickson,    76      Ind. 

188  216, 

V.    Hawkeve   Woolen      Mills 
Co.,    53    Iowa    521 
Norfolk  &c.  R.  Co.  v.  Howison, 

81   Va.    125 
Norris'    Appeal,    30    Pa.    122 

129,    262, 
North     v.    Globe       Fence       Co., 

(Mich.)    13    Detroit    Leg.      N. 

305. 


51 


D. 
32, 


99 
66 


244 

66 

9 

49 

175 

187 

264 

272 

49 

254 

281 

18 

24 

14 

85 

122 
127 
157 
260 
161 
128 
101 
238 
49 
252 
112 
276 
144 
243 
119 
277 
141 
241 
267 

21 


Ix 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.'] 


North  V.  La  Flesh.  73  Wis.  ^5^0    ^^^ 

North  End  Lumber  Co.  v. 
O'Donnell,     191     Pa.     St.     114      245 

Northern  Bank  v.  Decke- 
hach,     83     Ky.     154  163 

Northern  Light  Lodge  v.  Ken- 
nedy,  7   N.   Dak.    146  170 

North"  Presbvterian  Church  v. 
Jevne.    32    111.    214 

85,    132,    228,    274,   293 

North  etc.  Lumber  Co.  v.  Heg- 
wer,    1    Kan.    App.    623  85 

North  Star  Iron  &c.  Co.  v. 
Strong,    33    Minn.    1  104,   220 

Northwest  Bridge  Co.  v.  Ta- 
coma  Shipbuilding  Co.,  36 
Wash.   333 

101,     139,.    163,     212,   224 

Northwestern      Ass'n.      v.    Mc- 
pherson,    23     Ind.     App.     250 
82,    85,    129,    148a,    216,   221,   270 

Northwestern  etc.  Pavement 
Co.  V.  Norwegian  Seminary, 
43    Minn.    449  105,   229 

Norton    v.    Clark,    85    Me.     359 

49,    55,      57 
V.     Hope     Milling     etc.     Co., 
101    Kv.    223  154,   178 

V.     Sinkhorn,     61     N.     J.     Eq. 

508  209,   271 

VXorton  etc.  Contracting  Co. 
V.  Unique  Const.  Co.,  106  N. 
T.     Supp.    372  108 

Noss    V.    Cord,    1    Wis.    389  212 

Nottingham  v.  McKendrick, 
38   Or.   495        42,   108,   112,   114,   166 

Novelty  Iron  Works  v.  Capi- 
tal City  Oatmeal  Co.,  8S 
Iowa    524  114 

Noves  V.  Burton,  29  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)    631  212 

Nove  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Thread 
Flouring  Mills  Co.,   110  Mich. 

161  98 
Noves    V.    Fritz,    2    Miles    (Pa.) 

162  231 
V.    Smith,     (Tex.)     77     S.    \\'. 

649  115,     212,    261 

Nunan     v.     Dovle,     60       N.       Y. 

Super.     Ct.     377  49 

Nunes  v.  Wellisch,  75  Ky.  363  3 

Nunnallv    v.    Dorand,    110    Ala. 

539  196 

Nussberger    v.    Wasserman,    40 

Misc.    Rep.    120  292 

Nutriment  Co.  v.  George  Green 

Lumber      C"-.,    94       111.      App. 

342  192 

Nye     etc.     Co.     v.     Berger,       52 

Neb.    758  94,      98 

Nystrom     v.     Hamni,     4  7     Minn. 

33  6 

V.    London    etc.    Mortg.    Co., 

47    Minn.   31  6,   103 

O 

Oakland  Mfsr.  Co.  v.  Lemieux, 
98    Me.    488  234 

Gates  V.  Haley,  1  Dalv  (N.  Y.) 
338  66 


Oberbeck      v.    Mayer,    59      Mo. 

App.   289  169,   170 

Oberholtzer  v.  Norristown 
etc.  R.  Co.,  16  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
13  10 

O'Brien  v.  Gooding,  194  111. 
466  223 

v.     Graham,     33     111.       App. 
546  75 

v.    Hanson,    9    Mo.    App.    545 

12,      34 
v.    Krockinski,    50    111.    App. 

456  100,   105 

V.   Logan,    9   Pa.    97  111 

V.    Meyer,    9    Wkly.    L.    Bui. 

337  11 

V.   New   York  Butchers'   etc. 

Co.,    54    Misc.    Rep.    264      297 
V.    Pettis,    42    Iowa    293  156 

V.    Sylvester,    12    Pa.    Super. 

Ct.    408  295 

O'Brien  Boiler  Works  Co.  v. 
Haydock,    59    Mo.    App.     653 

14,   122 
Ochs    v.    M.    J.    Carnahan    Co., 

(Ind.)     76     N.     E.     788  216,   289 

O'Connell    v.     Smith,    101    Wis. 

68  295 

O'Connor  v.  Warner,   60  Pa.  St. 

223  8 

Oconto  "U'ater  Co.  v.  National 
Foundry  etc.  Works,  59  Fed. 
19  10 

Odd  Fellows  Hall  v.  Masser,  24 
Pa.    St.    507  18,    20,    22 

105,     176,    259,   267 
Oddie  V.  His  Creditors,   6  Mart. 

(N.    S.)     (La.)    473  33 

O'Donnell  v.  Kramer,  65  Calif. 
353  127 

V.   Rosenberg,   14  Abb.  Prac. 
(N.    S.)    (N.   Y.)    59  298 

O'Driscoll      v.      Bradford,      171 

Mass.    231  32,     95 

Ogden   V.   Alexander,    140   N.   Y. 

356  65,   101,   109,   110,   166 

Ogg    V.    Tate,    52    Ind.    159        24,   216 

Ogle  V.  Murray,   3  111.  App.  343   274 

O'Halloran   v.   Leachey,   39   Ind. 

150  104,   216,   289 

V.    Sullivan,    1    G.       Greene, 

(la.)    75  237 

Ohio  Savings,  etc.  Co.  v.  John- 
son,   10    C.    D.    752  147,   294 
Ohlinger  v.  Phillips,  2  Woodw. 

Dec.     (Pa.)     53  205 

Okisko  Co.  V.  Matthews,   3  Md. 

168  98,    135,   268 

Oldfield    V.    Barber,    12    P.      R. 

554  204 

O'Leary    v.    Burns,       53       Miss. 

171  219 

V.  Roe,   45  Mo.  App.   567      27,      85 

Oliver    v.    Davis,    81    Iowa    287     138 

V.    Davy,    34    Minn.    292  164 

V.     Fowler,     22     S.     Car.     534 

165,    220,   232 
Olmstead    v.    McNall,    7    Blackf. 

(Ind.)    387  12 

Olson    V.    Heath    Lumber    Mfg. 

Co.,    37   Minn.   298  102 

V.  Pennington,  37  Minn.  298  103 

V.  O'Malia,  75  111.  App.  387   198 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixi 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


Olympic      Theatre    In      re.,       2 

Browne     (Pa.)     275  138 

Omaha    &c.    Vinegar       Co.       v. 

Burns,    49   Neb.   229  13 

Omaha  Oil  etc.  Co.  v.  Greater 
America  Exposition  Co., 
(Neb.)     93    N.    W.    963  167 

Ombony  v.  Jones,  21  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)   520  26.      75 

V.    Jones,    19   N.   Y.    234        11,   138 
O'Neill     V.    Hurst,       11       Phila. 
(Pa.)    171  99 

V.   Percival,   20  Fla.   937     10,     29 
V.  St.  Olaf  s  School,  26  Minn. 

329  7,     110,   219 

V.    Taylor,     (W.    Va.)     53    S. 

E.  471  15, 

103,    113,    115,    116,   299 
Ontario    &c.    Min.    Co.    v.    Mac- 
kenzie,   (Colo.)    73   Pac.    791        245 
Oppenheimer     v.    Morrell,      118 

Pa.    189  18 

Oregon    Lumber    Co.    v.    Beck- 

leen,    (Iowa)    106   N.  W.   260  30 

O'Reilly   v.    Mahoney,    123   App. 

Div.     275  128 

Oriental   Hotel   Co.   v.   Griffiths, 

88    Tex.    574  146 

Orlandi  v.  Gray,    (Cal.)   58  Pac. 

15  95,   270 

Orne      v.    Barstow,    175      Mass. 

193  86 

O'Rourke    v.    Butte      Lodge,    19 

Mont.   541  271 

Orr  V.   Batterton,   53   Kv.    81  163 

V.    Fuller,    172    Mass.    597 

126,   132 
V.    Wolff,    71    App.    Dlv.    614      284 
Orr  etc.  Hardware  Co.  v.  Need- 
ham   Co.,    51    111.    App.    57 

100,   238 
V.  Needham  Co.,   62  111.  App. 

152  lOS 

V.  Russell,  169  111.   100  119 

Ortonville  v.  Geer,   93  Minn. 

501  156,   157 

Ortwine      v.    Caskey,     43      Md. 

134  225 

Osborn    v.    Logus,    28    Or.    302 

110,    112,    228,    229,   255 
Osborne    v.    Barnes,    179    Mass. 
597  85,    157,    164,   175 

V.    Bigstone      Gap      Colliery 

Co.,    96   Va.    58  98 

O'Shea   v.    O'Shea,    91   Mo.    App. 

221  108,   121,   297 

Oster   V.    Rebeneau,    46   Mo.   595 

8,   104 
Oswald    V.    Buckholz,    13    Iowa 

506  282 

Othenin  v.  Brown,   66  Mo.  App. 

318  121 

Othmer      v.    Clifton,    69      Iowa 

656  67 

Otis  V.  Cusack,  43  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  546  l^^.f; 

V.    Dodd.    24    Hun    538  27 

V.   Dodds,   90   N.   Y.   336  35 

V.    Voorhis,    49      Ho'w.    Prac. 

(N.    Y.)    273  234 

Otley  V.   Haviland,    36   Miss.    19 

151,    162,   282 
Ottinger  In  re.,  17  Pa.   Co.   Ct. 
R.   244  140 


258 
301 


138 

58 


209 


Ottiwell    V.    Watkins,    15    Daly 

308 
Ottman    v.   Schenectady   Realty 

Co.,   119   App.   Div.   736 
Ottumwa   Iron   Works   v.   Muir, 

126    Mo.    App.    582 
Owen   V.  Johnson,    174   Pa.   99 
V.    Murray,    6   Ohio   Dec.   223 
66, 
Owens    V.    Ackerson,    1    E.      D. 
Smith    (N.    Y.)    691 
V.    Heidbreder,    (Tex.)    44    S. 

W.    1079  279,   281 

V.     Hord,     (Tex.)     37     S.     W. 

1093  103,   245 


Pace    V.    Moorman,    3    Va.    Sup. 
Ct.   145  154 

V.  Yost,  9  Kulp   (Pa.)   357 

121,   124 
V.   Yost,   10   Kulp    (Pa.)    538     231 
Pacific    Mfg.    Co.    V.    Brown,    8 

Wash.    347  98,   220 

Pacific     Mut.     &c.     Ins.     Co.     v. 
Fisher,    106    Cal.    224  99 

111,    122,    130.    273.    275.   299 
Pacific      Rolling      Mill      Co.    v. 
Bear    Val.    Irr.    Co.,    120    Cal. 
94  12.      49 

V.    Hamilton.    61    Fed.    476 

53,      54 
V.    James    St.    Const.    Co.,    68 

Fed.    966  8,      58 

Packard  v.  Sugarman,  31  Misc. 

Rep.    623  11,   107 

Paddock    v.    Stout,    121    111.    571 

34,    134,    157,    164,    176,   186 
Padgitt    V.    Dallas     Brick    etc. 
Co.,    92    Tex.    626  55 

V.   Dallas   Brick   etc.   Co.,    51 

— S^_W.    529  74 

Page    vr~Bettes,    17    Mo.      App.  ,/ 

366  ^^~^^     ._  124,/256 

Paige   V.  Peters,   70  Wis. —178  10 

Paine    v.     Bonney,       4       E.       D. 

Smith,    734  OSV-IS^'' 


Putnam,    10    Neb.^^88 
Tillinghast,      52      Conn. 
532 


277 
30 


Pairo    V.    Bethell,    75    Va.    825 

134,    196,    2^4,   280 
Palmer    v.    Crawford,    55    Ohio 
S.    423  4 

V.    Lavigne,    104    Cal.    30 

13,   107,     240,   255 
V.  McGinness,   (Iowa)   102  N. 

W.    802  109,   179 

V.    Tingle,    55   O.   S.   432  4,      44 

Panola    County    v.    Gillen,       59 

Miss.    198  10 

Parberry    v.    Johnson.    51    Miss. 

291  179 

Pardue  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 

52    Neb.    201  114.   126,   218 

Parish's   Appeal,    83    Pa.    Ill 

12,  14.  17,  97,  130 
Parish  v.  Murphy,  51  Ga.  614  287 
Parke    County    v.    O'Connor,    86 

Ind.    531  10 

Parker  v.   Anthony,  7  Gray  291     32 
V.    Bell,    73    Mass.    429 

16,    43,    104,   240 
V.    Scott,    82   Iowa    266  127 


Ixii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


Parker  Co.  v.   Reddick,   18  Ind. 

App.   616  14,   18.   233,   415 

Parks    V.    Tippie,     (Tex.)    34    S. 

V.^.    676  79 

Parmelee  v.  Hambleton,   19  111. 
615  15 

V.    Tennessee   &c.    R.   Co.,   81 

Tenn.    600  174 

Parmenter    v.    Chllds,    12    Iowa 

22  241,   272 

Parrish    v.    Christopher,    (Ky.) 

3    S.    W.    603  128 

Parrish    and    Hazard's    Appeal, 

S3    Pa.    122  17 

Parsley    v.     David,     106    N.     C. 

225  67,   260 

Parsons      v.    Bro'wn,    97      Iowa 
699  16 

V.    Moses,    40    App.    Div.    58      185 
V.    Pearson,    9    Wash.    48  10 

V.     Winslow,     1     Grant     Cas.      ( 
160  3 

Passmore    v.    E)astin's,    90    Kv. 

380  33 

Patch  V.   Collins,   158   Mass.   468   201 
Paterson    v.    Pennsylvania    Re- 
form School,  92  Pa.  229  10 
V.    St.    Thomas'    Church,    18 

R.    I.    349  75 

Patrick   v.    Abeles,    27   Mo.    184      284 
V.    Ballentine,   22   Mo.    143  71 

V.    Faulke,    45    Mo.    312  94 

V.    Smith,    120   Mass.    510  108 

V.    T\^albourne,    27    Ont.      R. 

221  155 

Patrick    Land    Co.    v.    Leaven- 
worth,    43    Neb.     715  162 
Patterson    v.    Frazier,    123    Pa. 
414  12 
V.    Gallagher,    25    Ore.    227       143 
Patton   V.    Matter,   21   Ind.   App. 

277  82,      98 

Paul     V.    Hoeft,     28     N.    J.     Eq. 

11,   164 
Paulsen   v.    Manske,    126    111.    72 

27.    30,    174,    189 
Pavne  v.  T^'ilson,   74  N.  Y.   348 

12,   154,   155 
Peabodv   v.    Eastern    Methodist 

Soc,    87   Mass.   540  24,   35,   225 

Pearce   v.   Albright,    (N.   M.)    76 

P.    286  115,   287 

Pease  v.  Thompson,  67  Iowa  70   261 
Peatman    v.    Centerville    Light 
etc.    Co.,    105    Iowa    1 

16,    18,    115,    165,   167 
Peck    V.    Bridwell,    6    Mo.    App. 
451  240 

V.  Bridwell,  10  Mo.  App.  524 

175,   239 
V.    Henslev,    21    Ind.    344 

74,   238 
V.   Hinds,   68   111.   App.   319  77 

V.    Standart,   1   111.   App.   228      135 
Pedretti   v.   Stichtenoth,    6  Ohio 

Cir.    Ct.    516  81,      97 

Pell  V.  Baur.   133  X.  T.   377   112,   144 
V.    Cole,    59    ^<:y.    252  31 

Pence    v.    Roads,    6    Ohio    Dec. 

90  4 

Pendleburg   v.    Meade,    1   E.    D. 

Smith,    (N.    Y.)    728  53 

Penfield   v.   Harris,   7    Tex.   Civ. 
App.    659  25 


Peninsular   etc.    Electric   Co.   v. 

Norris,   100  Mich.   496 
Peninsular       Lumber       Co.       v. 
Fehrenbach,    1    Marv.    (Del.) 
98 
Pennock    v.    Hoover,    5    Ra'W'le 
(Pa.^    291  85,   129,   132, 

Pennsylvania  Steel  Co.  v.  Title 
Guarantv    etc.    Co.,    50    Misc. 
Rep.    51 
Penrose  v.   Calkins,   77   Cal.   396 
Pensacola    R.    Co.    v.    Schaffer, 

76    Ala.    233 
People    v.    Butler,    2    Neb.    5 
V.  Butler,  61  How.  Prac.   (N. 

Y.)    274 
V.     Lamb,     3    Lans.     (N.    Y.) 
134 
People's    etc.    Ass'n.    v.    Speers, 
115    Ind.    297  36,   1 

V.  Clark,   (Tex.)  33  S.  "W.  881 
Peoples'    Lumber    Co.    v.    Havs, 
75    Mo.    App.    316  114, 

People's    etc.    Rice    Mill    Co.    v. 

Venoit,    117    La.    999 
Perini  v.  Schmvg-,  24  Misc.  Rep. 

761 
Perkins   v.   Blair,    (R.   I.)    47   A. 
88.3 
V.    Bovd,    37    Colo.    265 

97,   135, 
V.  Boyd,    (Colo.)   65  Pac.   350 
98,    167,    273, 
V.  Davis,  120  Mass.  408 
V.    Wilson,     1    Marv.     (Del.) 
196 
Perkins    Oil     Co.     \ 

107    Tenn.    409 
Perrv    v.    Brainard 
Pac.    882 
V.    Parrott,    135    Cal.    238 
V.    iPotashinski,     169     Mass. 

351 
V.    Stevenson,    178   N.   Y.    559 
Person   v.   Herring,   63  N.  J.  L. 
599 
V.   Smith,   30   111.  App.  103 
V.    Stoll,   174  N.  Y.   548 
Peterman   v.  Milwaukee  Brew 

ing   Co.,    11    Wash.    199        255. 

Petersen     v.     Shain,     (Cal.)     33 

Pac.     1086  194, 

V.   Dillon,    27    Wash.    78 

Pflueger      v.      Lewis      Foundry 

etc.    Co.,    134    Fed.    28 
Phelps    v.    Edwards,    52 
371 
V.      Maxwell's     Creek 
Min.    Co.,    49    Cal. 

36,   106, 
V.    Pope,    53    Iowa    691 
Phelps    etc.    ■\A''indmill      Co.    v. 
Baker,    49    Kan.    434 
V.    Parker,    (Tex.)    30    S.    W. 

V.  Shay,  32  Neb.  19 

12,  13,  25, 
Phillips  V.  Clark,  61  Ky.  348 
V.  Gallant,  62  N.  Y.  262 
V.  Gilbert,  101  V.    S.  721 

117, 
V.  Gilbert,  2  MacArthur, 
(D.  C.)  414  40,  48, 

V  Hyde,  45  Ga.  220 


Eberhart, 
(Calif.)  8 


178 

213 
153 

139 
103 

221 
10 

183 

131 

48a 
162 

117 
10 

213 
30 

250 

299 
164 

236 

247 

95 
151 

57 
205 

75 

248 

65 

5.  122 

269 

220 


Tex. 


Gold 
336 


135 

163 

292 
283 

12 

79 

120 
35 
49 

185 

139 
114 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixiii 


[References  are  to  Sectio^is.'] 


Phillips  V.  Mason,  54  Tenn.  61  6 
V.  Roberts,  26  W.  Va.  783  249 
V.      Springfield      Crude      Oil 

Co.,    76    Kan.    783  11 

V.    Stone,    25    111.     66  121 

V.    University,    97    Va.    472  10 

Philadelphia      v.      Slonaker,      6 

Phila.    (Pa.)    48  94 

Philadelphia       Brick       Co.       v. 

Johnson,    162    Pa.    199  246 

Philadelphia    Packing,    &c.,    Co. 

In   re,  4   Pa.   Dist.  R.   57  105 

Phoenix  Furniture  Co.  v.  Put- 
in-Bav  Hotel  Co.,  66  Fed. 
683  16,    44,    81,    86 

Phoenix  Iron  Co.  v.  The  Rich- 
mond,   6    Mackey    (D.    C.)    180 

95,   112,   296 
Phoenix     Mfg.     Co.     v.     McCor- 
miek    Harvesting    Mach.    Co., 
Ill   Wis.    570  179 

Phoenix,  &c..  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Batchen,    6    111.    App.    621 

164,   221,   228 
Phoenix     Planing     Mill     Co.     v. 

Harrison,   108  Mo.   App.   603        213 
Piaro   V.  Bethel,   75  Va.   826  85 

Piekel  Marble,  &c.,  Co.  v. 
Handlan,    85    Mo.    App.    313  26 

V.    McClay,   54   Neb.   661  17  0 

Pickens  v.  Plattsmouth  Land, 
&c.,  Co.,  31  Neb.  585,  37  Neb. 
272  27,    138 

V.    Polk,    42    Neb.    267  225 

Pickett    V.    Gollner,      7     N.     Y. 

Supp.   196  13 

Pierce  v.  Barnes,  106  111.  App. 
241  35,    255 

V.   Birkholm,  115  CaL   657  111 

V.   Cabot,    159   Mass.   202 

7,  66,  111 
V.  Marple,  148  Pa.  69  34,  267 
V.  0.«born,  40  Kan.  168  101,  118 
V.    Plumb,    74    111.    325  23,      66 

V.    Willis,    103    Cal.    91  298 

Pierce,  &c.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ameri- 
can Bonding  Co.,  118  App. 
Div.    662  185 

Pierson  v.  Jackman,  47  App. 
Div.    625  121,    170 

V.    Jackman,    27    Misc.    Rep. 

425  122 

Pifer      V.      Ward,       8      Blackf. 

(Ind.)    252  80,    153,    187 

Pike  V.  Irwin,  3  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.    14  127,    209 

V.    Scott,    60    N.   H.    469      219.    240 
Pike   County    v.   Norrington,    82 

Ind.    190  10,    12 

Pilz    V.    Killings-worth,    20    Ore. 

432  54,    237,    244 

Pimlott    V.    Hall,    55    N.   J.    Law 

192  55 

Pinkerton     v.    Le    Beau,      3      S. 

Dak.    440  27 

Pinkston    v.    Young,    104    N.    C. 

102  74 

Pinning  v.   Skipper,   71  Md.   347   174 
Pioneer,    Etc.,     Const.      Co.      v. 

McClav.   54  Neb.   663  170 

Piper  V.   Hoyt.    61   Vt.   539      219,   220 
Pitschke    v.    Pope     (Colo.),     78 

Pac.    1077  16 

Pitt  v.  Acosta,   18  Fla.  270  214 


Pittman    v.    Wakefield,    90    Ky. 

171  188,    276 

Pitts   V.   Bomar,   33   Ga.   96  47 

Pittsburgh       Heating       Supply 

Co.    V.    Will,   5    Pa.    Dist.    618      249 
Pittsburgh    Glass    Co.   v.    Peper 

(Mo.),    70    S.   W.   910  197 

V.   Sisters,    83   Minn.    29  58 

Pittsburg    Testing    Laboratory 

V.    Milwaukee    Electric,    Etc., 

Co.,    110   Wis.    633 
Planters'    Bank    v.    Dodson,    17 

Miss.    527 
Platteville  v.  Bell,   66  Wis.   326 
Plummer  v.   Eckenrode,   50  Md. 

225  234,    271 

Poerschke   v.   Horowitz,   178   N. 

Y.    601 
V.    Kedenburg,   6   Abb.   Prac. 
(N.   S.)    172 
Pogue    V.    Clark,    25    111.    308 
Poillon    V.    New    York,      47      N. 

Y.    666 
Poirer    v.    Desmond,    177    Mass. 

201 
Pollock  v.    Morrison,   176   Mass. 

83  103,    256, 

Pomerov    v.    White,      33      Neb. 

243      "  54,     58, 

Ponder      v.      Safety      Building, 

i&c,    Co.,    22    Ky.    Law     Rep. 

1074  97,    161 

Pond      Machine      Tool      Co.      v. 

Robinson,    38    Minn.    272  6,   14 

Ponti    V.   Eckels    (Wis.),   108   N. 

W.    62  284,   292 

Pool    v.    Sanford,    52    Tex.     621 

231,     243 
V.    Wedemever,    56    Tex.    287 

110,    116,    252 
Poole    In    re,    14    N.    Y.    Supp. 

790  201 

Poole    v;'T!^ellows,^^S    R.    I.    64 

74,  141,    249 
V.    L'nion    Pass.    Ry.    Co.,    2^4 
W.    N.    C.    (Pa.)     376 
Pope    V.    Graham.    44    Tex.    196 
Poppert      V.      "W'right,      52      Mo. 

App.    576 
Port     Clinton    v.    Stone    Co.,     6 

Ohio   Cir.    Dec.    218 
Porteous      Decorative      Co.      v. 

Fee    (Nev.),    91    P.    135 
Porter    v.    Miles,    67    Ala 


10 


138 
10 


131 


131 

21 


10 
175 


261 
249 


32 
254 


50 

111 

130 

271,    273 

74 

238 

207 


v.   Livelv,   45   Ga.    159 
V.   Tooke,   35   Mo.   107 
V.    Wilder,    62    Ga.    520 
Portland,     Etc.,     Mfg.      Co. 

School   Dist.    13   Ore.   283 
Portoues    v.   Badenoch,    132    111. 
377 
V.   Holmes,   33   111.   App.    312 
Portsmouth    Iron    Co.    v.    Mur- 
ray,   38    Ohio    St.    323  44,    175 
Portsmouth       Sav.        Bank       v. 

Rilev,    54    Neb.    531  275 

Post     V.     Campbell,     83     N.     Y. 

279  68,     194 

Potshuiskv    V.     Krempkan,      26 

Tex.   307 
Potter  M.   Co.   v.    Meyer    (Ind.), 
8  5    N.    E.    725 
V.    Mever     (Ind.),    86    N.    E. 

837  216 


10 


228 
243 


127 
45 


Ixiv 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


Potvln    V.    Denny    Hotel    Co.,    9 
Wash.    316  167 

V.    Wickershom,     15     Wash. 

646  198 

Pou   V.   Coving-ton,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

84    Ga.    311  74 

Powell   V.   Nolan,   27   W'ash.   318 
48,   85,  97,  122,   159,  189,  194, 
209,    231,    232,    247,    255,    258,    298 
V    Rogers,    11    111.    App.    98      281 
V.    Webber,    79    111.    134  34 

Power    V.    McCord,    36    111.    214      204 
V.    Onward    Const.     Co.,     39 

Misc.    Rep.    707  249 

Powers    V.    Armstrong',    19    Ga. 
427  24 

V.     Hogan,     67     How.     Prac. 

(N.    Y.)    255  23,    49 

Powers    Lumber    Co.    v.    Wade, 

15    Tex.    Civ.    App.    295  8,    33 

Prairie     Lodge     v.     Smith,      58 

Miss.    301  247 

Prairie    Lumber    Co.    v.    Kors- 

meyer    (Kan.),    43    Pac.   773        295 

Pratt   V.   Campbell,    24    Pa.    184      259 

V.    Duncan,    36    Minn.    545  13 

v.    Peavev,    41    Me.    370  230 

V.   Tudor,    14    Tex.   37  198 

Premier     Steel    Co.      v.      McEl- 

waine   Co.,    144    Ind.    614 

82,    85,    98,    269 
Prendergast      v.      McNallv,      76 

111.    App.    335  31,    103 

PresbA'terian     Church     v.     Alli- 
son,  10  Pa.  413  10,   20,  22,  267 
Prescott  V.   Maxwell,   48   111.   82,      67 
Preston     v.    Sonora    Lodge,    39 

Cal.    116  ll.S 

Pretz's    Appeal,    35    Pa.    349  104 

Preusser   v.    Florence,    51    How. 

Prac.     (N.    T.)    385  65,   214 

Price    V.    Doyle,    34    Minn.    400 

170,     244 
V.    Jennings,     62    Ind.     Ill 

29.    45,    235 
V.    Kirk.    90    Pa.    47  16 

V.   Merritt,    55   Mo.   App.    640 

16,    26,    122 
V.   Sanford,    112   N.   Car.   660      297 
Pride    v.    Viles,    35    Tenn.    125 

146,   161 
Priebatsch     v.      Third      Baptist 

Church,   66   Miss.   345  282 

Prince  v.  Neal-Millard  Co.,   124 

Ga.   884  68,   261 

Prior     V.     W^hite,     32     Hun     (N. 

y.)    14  124 

Proctor  V.   Tows,   115   111.   138   30,   36 
Progress,    Etc.,    Machine    Co.   v. 
Gratiot    Brick,    Etc.,    Co.,    151 
Mo.   501  14,   18 

Protection   Ins.    Co.    v.    Hall,    54 

Ky.   411  34 

Protective    Union    v.    Nixon,    1 

E.    D.    Smith    (N.    Y.)    671  126 

Provost  V.   Shirk,   223  111.    468 

S,  11,   32.   49,   106 


Pruegel    v.    Kitahen,    33    Wash. 

214 

257 

Prugh    Co.   V.   Wallace.    198    111. 

422 

34 

Prutzman    v.    Bushong,    83    Pa. 

526 

26 

Pryor  v.   White,    55   Ky.   605 

177 

Public   Schools   v.  Heath,   15  N. 

J.    Eq.    22  144 

Pue  V.   Hetzell.   16   Md.   539      75,   109 
Pugh    Co.    V.    Wallace,    198    111. 

422  8 

Pullen   V.   Bell,    40    Me.    314  25 

Puliis      V.      Hoffman,      28      Mo. 

App.   666  15.   25,   122 

Puliis    Iron    Co.     v.     Natchito- 
ches.  51   La.   Ann.    1377  149 
Putnam   v.   Ross,   55   Mo.    116  223 
V.    Ross,    46    Mo.    338  71 
Purmort     v.      Tucker     Lumber 

Co.,   2   Colo.   470  6 

Purser    v.    Cady    (Cal.),    49    P. 

180  281 

Purtell   V.    Chicago    Forge,   &c., 

Co.,   74  Wis.   132  10 

Purvis    V.    Brumbaugh,    8     Pa. 

Super.    Ct.    292  57,    173,    174 

V.    Ross,    12    Pa.    Co.    Ct.    R. 

193  102 

Q 

Quaack    v.     Schmid,      131      Ind. 

1S5  56,    76,    82 

Quackenbush      v.      Carson,      21 

111.    99  237 

Queal     V.     Stradlev,     117     Iowa 

748  56,    170 

Quickel    In    re,    11    York    Leg. 

(Pa.)    150  94 

Quimbv    v.    Durg-in,    148    Mass. 
104  135 

v.   Sloan,   2   E.   D.   Smith    (N. 

Y.)    594  154,    187,    292 

V.    Slipper,      7       T\'ash.       475 

225,  232 
V.      Wilmington,      5      Houst. 

(Del.)    26  177 

Quinlan  v.  Russell.  94  N.  Y.   350   66 
Quinn    v.    Allen,    85    111.    39 

286,    292 
V.   Logan,   67  Tex.   600  86 

R 

Race  V.   Sullivan,   1  111.  App.   94 

222,    277 
Raeder     v.     Bensberg,     6     Mo. 

App.  445  16 

Ragon      V.      Howard.      97      Tenn. 

334  163,   220,    231,    232 

Raleigh    V.    Tossettel,    36    Ind. 

295  66 

Rail    V.    McCrary,    45    Mo.    App. 

365  104,    239,    264 

Rand    v.    Grubbs,    26    Mo.    App. 
591  181 

V.     Leeds,      2     Phila.      (Pa.) 

160  65 

V.    Mann,    3   Phila.    (Pa.)    429      12 

V.    Parker,    73    Iowa    396  262 

Randolph      v.      Builders.      Etc., 

Supplv   Co..    106   Ala.    501  5 

V.    Chisholm,      29      111.     App. 

172  140 

V.     Learv.     3     E.      D.      Smith 

(N.   Y.)    637  213,   214,   261 

V.    Onstott,    58    111.    52  255 

Rankin    v.    Malarkey,    23    Ore. 

593  113 

V.   Walker,   65  Ind.   222  249 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixv 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


Ransom    v.    Sheehan,      7S      Mo. 

668  104 

Rass   V.    Sebastian,    160   111.    602     30 
Rathbun    v.   Hayford,    87    Mass. 

406  85 

Rauer   v.    Fay,    110    Cal.    361  165 

Raven    v.    Smith,    71    Hun    197  13 

V.    Smith,    76    Hun    60      183,    276 

V.    Smith,    148    N.    Y.    415  210 

Rawlings      v.      New      Memphis 

Gaslig-ht    Co.,    105    Tenn.    268      158 
Ray      County      Sav.      Bank      v. 

Cramer,    54    Mo.    App.    587      10,    20 
Raymond      v.      Ewing,      26      111. 

329  201,    293 

Rayson    v.      Horton,      90      Wis. 

367  212 

Read  v.   Gillespie,   64   Tex.   42  90 

Reading     v.     Hopson,      90     Pa. 

494  159 

Reading-  Hardware  Co.   v.   New 

York,    27   Misc.   Rep.    448  149 

Real    Estate,    Etc.,    Co.    v.    Phil- 
lips,  90  Md.   515  30,   123 
Record    v.    Fulmer,    21    Pa.    Co. 

Ct.    R.    93  173 

Redman  v.  Williamson,  2  Iowa 

488  11,    24,    271 

Red    River,    &c..    Bank    v.    Hig- 

gins,    72    Tex.    66  297 

Red      River      Lumber      Co.      v. 
Friel,    7   N.    Dak.   46  49, 

94,     100,     103,     106,     115,     120,     191 
Reece   v.    Corlew,    60    Tex.    70  33 

V.      Haymaker,      25      Pittsb. 

Leg.  J.   74  107,   227,   278 

Reed    v.    Boyd,    84    111.    66 

121,   141,   197,    232,    24] 
V.    Estes    (Tenn.),    80    S.    W. 

1086  36,    279,    28] 

V.  Ginsburg,   64  Ohio  St.  11      161 
V.   Lambertson,   53   Mo.   App. 

76  162 

V.    Ludington,     13    Wis.     308 

138,    164 
V.    Norton,    90    Cal.    590 

34,    41,    42,    111, 
128,    239,    254,    255,    261,    262 
V.   Norton,    99   Cal.   617  255 

V.    Rochford,     62    N.     J.    Eq. 

186  160 

Reeve    v.    Elmendorf,    38    N.    J. 

Law    125  53,    76,    200,    210 

Reeves  v.   Henderson,   90   Tenn. 
521  67,    SO 

v.    Seitz,     47    App.    Div.    267 

77,    118 
Regan   v.   Borst,    11    Misc.    Rep. 

92  27 

Regs^-in    \.    Manes,    22    Ont.    R. 

443  27 

Rehrer    v.    Zeigler,    3    Watts    & 

S.     (Pa.)    258  113,    114 

Reich  ert      v.      Krass,      13      Ind. 

App.    348  216 

Reid  V.  Bank  of  Tennessee,   33 
Tenn.   262  156 

V.    Berry,    178    Mass.    260 

17,   259 
Reiley    v.    Ward,    4    G.    Greene 
(Iowa)    21  34 

V.    Elliott,     1     Del.      Co.      R. 

(Pa.)    77  129,   130 

V.    Hudson,     62    Mo.    383 

12,   164,   271,   276 


Reiley    v.    Poerschke,    14    Misc. 
Rep.   466  185 

v.    Poerschke,   19   Misc.   Rep. 

612  185,   236 

V.     Williams,     47    Minn.     590 

85,    164 
Reindollar     v.     Flickinger,      59 

Md.   469  74,    106 

Reinhart    v.    Shutt,    15    Ont.    R. 

325  160 

Reiss   V.    Schemer,    87    111.   App. 

84  '  33      255 

Reitz   V.   Ghio,   47   Mo.   App.   287 

85,    115 
Reneker  v.  Hill,   3  Phila.   (Pa.) 

110  114 

Renton   v.  Gonley,    49   Cal.    185        67 
Renwick    v.    Morris,    7    Hill    (N. 

Y.)    575  71 

Reppard,     Etc.,    Co.    v.     Morri- 
son,   120   Ga.    28  36,     37 
Reynolds    v.    Manhattan    Trust 
Co.,    83    Fed.     593         131,   150,   175 
V.   Patten,   5   Misc.   Rep.   215      194 
V.    Randall,    97    Ga.    231  250 
Rhine   v.    Mauk,   21   Pa.   Co.    Ct. 

345  6,    57 

Rhodes    v.   Jones    (Tex.),    64    S. 
W.    699  235,    260 

V.    Webb-Jameson     Co.,      19 
Ind.    App.    195 

12,    45,    76,    82,    148a,    236 
Rialto  Mining,  Etc.,  Co.  v.  Lo- 
well,   23    Colo.    253  236 
Rice  V.   Baxter,    15    Pa.    Co.    Ct. 
198  57 
V.    Brown,    1    Kan.    App.    646 

96,  220 
V.    Carmlchael,    4   Colo.   App. 

84  71,  74,   119 

V.    Culver,    57    App.   Div.    552      35 
V.    Hall,    41    Wis.    453  228 

V.   Nantasket   Co.,    140   Mass. 

256  254 

V.    Simpson,    26    Kan.    143        265 

V.    Simpson,    30    Kan.    28  220 

Richards       v.       Lewisohn,        19 

Mont.    128  101,    287 

V.    O'Brien,     173     Mass.     332 

76,  266 
V.  Reed,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  220  245 
V.   Shear,   70   Cal.   187  10 

V.    Waldron,    20    D.    C.    585        160 
Richards    Brick    Co.    v.    Atkin- 
son, 16  App.  D.  C.  462  139,   140 
V.    Trott,    23   App.    D.    C.    284 

85,    86 
Richardson   v.    Central  Lumber 
Co.,    105    111.    App.    358  34,    113 

V.    Central    Lumber    Co.,    112 

111.     App.     160  95,     123 

V.    Hickman,    32      Ark.      406 

187,  207 
V.  O'Connell,  88  Mo.  App.  12  9 
V.    Sanford,       112       N.       Car. 

660  297 

V.     Warwick,     8     Miss.     131 

277,   298 
Richardson,    Etc.,    Co.    v.    Reid, 

50   Hun    606  35 

Richlands     Flint     Glass     Co.    v. 

Hiltebeltel,   92  Va.    91  237,   244 

Ricker   v.   Joy,    72   Me.    106  116 

V.    Schadt,    5    Tex.    Civ.   App. 

460  25,    65,    244 


Ixvi 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.1 

Rider-Ericsson    Engine    Co.    v. 

Fredericks,  25  Pa.   Super.  Ct. 

72  256,    267 

Ridge      V.      Mercantile      Loan, 

Etc.,     Co.,     56     Mo.     App.     155 


214 
110 


10 

122 


1S3 


22,    194 

Rietz  V.   Cover,   83   111.   28  157 

Rigg-s    V.      Chapin,      7      N.      T. 
Supp.    765  127 

V.   Stewart,   14  N.  T.   St.   695    274 
Riggs    Fire    Ins.    Co.    v.    Shedd, 

16    App.    D.    C.    150  68,    96 

Rilev  V.  Kenney,  33  Misc.   Rep. 

384  195 

Rimmey   v.   Getterman,    63    Md. 

424  31,  74 

Rinaker    v.    Freeman,     84     111. 

App.    283  94 

Ringle  v.   Matthiessen,   17  App. 

Div.   374  184,   185 

Ringle    v.    Wallis    Iron    Works, 
4    Misc.    Rep.    15  94,    121 

V.    Wallis    Iron    Works,     16 

Misc.   Rep.   167  185,   287 

V.    "^^allis    Iron    Works,     85 

Hun    279 
V.    Wallis    Iron    Works,    149 
N.    T.    439 
Rinn    v.    Electric   Power   Co.,    3 

App.    Div.    305  16.    127 

Rinzel    V.    Stumf,    116   Wis.    287 

14,    175,    194 
Ripley  v.  Gage  County  Com'rs, 

3    Neb.    397 
Risen    V.    Moon,    91    Va.    384 
Risse   V.   Hopkins  Planing  Mill 

Co.,    55   Kan.    518 
Ritchey    v.    Risley,    3    Ore.    184 

130,   180 
Ritchie    v.    Grundy,    7   Man.    532 

49,   173 
Riter  v.  Houston  Oil,  Etc.,  Co., 
19    Tex.    Civ.    App.    516 

65,   68,   102,   119 
Rittenhouse     v.     Sable,     43     111. 

App.   558  244 

Ritter     v.     Stevenson,      7     Cal. 

388  166 

Rivers   v.   Mulholland,    62   Miss. 

766 
River.side       Lumber        Co.        v. 
Hampton,     7      Houst.      (Del.) 
486 
Roach    v.    Chapin,    27    111.    194 
Roane     v.     Murphy     (Tex.),     96 

S.    T\^.    782  10,    49 

Roanoke    Land,     Etc.,      Co.      v. 

Karn,    SO    Va.    589  56,    242 

Roat    V.    Frear,    167    Pa.    614  105 

Roberts       v.     Fowler,     4       Abb. 

Prac.    (N.    T.)    263  8,    165 

V.  Gates,  64  111.  374         221 

V.  Hvde,  15  La.  Ann.  51      41 

V.    Miller,    31    Mich.    73  297 

V.   Miller,   32   Mich.   289      245,   252 

V.    Riggs,    84    Kv.    251  29 

V.    Wilcoxson,    36    Tex.    355 

179,   273 
Robertson  v.  Barra^ck,  80  Iowa, 
538  146 

V.    Moore    (Idaho"),    77    Pac. 

218  115.   235,   269,   299 

Robbins  v.  Arendt,  4  Misc.  Rep. 
196  26,    67 

V.    Blevins,    109    Miss.    219  56 


Robins    V.   Bunn,    34   N.   J, 

322 
Robinson      v. 

table.     Etc 

Div.    69 
V.    Davis,    S    Del 


Law 


Chinese     Chari- 
Assn.,     47     App. 


oS 


101 
240 


101 


Hagenkamp, 


(Pa.)  237 
108,  204, 

58  Minn. 
169,  170, 


V.   Marney,    5    Blackf.    (Ind.) 

329 
V.    State    Ins.    Co.,    55    Iowa 
489 
Robock  V.   Peters,   13   Man.   124 
49,   98,    159,    160, 
Roby  V.  Universitj%  36  Vt.  565 
Rocliford   V.    Rochford    (Mass.), 

78    X.    E.    454 
Rockwell    V.    Kellj^    190    Mass. 
439 
V.   Light    (Cal.),   92   P.    649 
V.      O'Brien-Green      Co.,      32 
111.  App.   293  103, 

Rockwell     Mfg.    Co.     v.      Cam- 
bridge   Springs    Co.,    191    Pa. 
St.   386 
Rockwood  V.  Walcott,  85  Mass. 
458  64,    221, 

Rodbourn       v.       Seneca       Lake 
Grape,  Etc.,   Co.,   67  N.  T.   215 
Roe   V.   Scanlan,   98   Ky.   24 
Roebling  Sons  Co.  v.  Bear  Val. 
Irr.    Co.,    99    Cal.    488 
V.  Humboldt  Electric 

Light,     Etc.,     Co.,     112 
Cal.    288 
Rogers,      Etc.,      Hdw.      Co.      v. 
Cleveland    Bldg.     Co.      (Mo.), 
32    S.    "U".    1 
Rogers  v.   C.   C.  C.  Min.   Co.,   75 
Mo.    App.    114 
V.     Central     Loan     &     Trust 

Co.,    49    Neb.    676 
V.         Concord         Apartment 
House   Co.,    93   111.  App. 
302 
V.   Klingler,   3  Whart.    (Pa.) 

332 
V.   rvicGuire,   57   Hun  590 
Omaha   Hotel   Co.,   4   Xeb. 


227 

241 

241 

171 

94 

77 

299 
138 

49 

182 
94 

121 

245 

234 

67 
143 


54 


631 


V.    Powell,    1    111.   App, 
Rohan     Bros.    Mfg.    Co.    v.     St 

Louis   Malleable   Iron   Co.,   34 

Mo.    App.    157 
Rolev\-itch    v.    Harrington, 

Dak.),    107    N.    'W.    207 
Rollin    V.    Cross,    45    N.    Y. 


(S. 
16, 
766 
26, 

Roman    v.    Thorn,    S3    Ala.    443 
Rome  Hotel  Co.  v.  Warlick,  87 

Ga.    34 
Roose       V.       Billingsly,       Etc., 

Comm.    Co.,    74   Iowa   51 
Root    V.    Bryant,    57    Cal.    48 
Rope  V.   Hess,    6   N.   T.    St.   710 
Rose   V.    Gray,    40    Ga.    156 
V.    Munie,    4    Cal.    173 
V.        Persse,        Etc.,        Paper 
Works,    49    Conn.    256 
103,   176, 
Rosenbaum      v.      Carlisle,       78 

Miss.    882 
Rosenberg  v.  Union   Iron,   Etc., 
Co.,    63    111.   App.    99 


18 

58 

281 
138 
287 

32 

281 
49 

165 
240 

261 

178 

165 
224 

126 

103 
161 
67 
187 
161 

225 

64 

102 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixvii 


[References  are 

Rosental    v.     Maryland     Brick 

Co.,    61    Md.    590  129 

Ross    V.    Derr,    18    111.    245      197,    297 

V.    Hunter,    3    Brewst.    169  48 

V.  Simon,   16  Daly  159        106,  240 

Rossi    V.    MacKellar,    13    N.    T. 

Supp.    827  25 

Roth   V.   Hobson,   5   Pa.   Co.    Ct. 

R.   17  56 

Rothe    V.    Bellingrath,    71    Ala. 

55  30,  200,  258 

Rothgerber    v.    Dupuy,    64      111. 

458  58 

Roulet   V.   Hog-an,   107   111.   App. 
164  35 

V.    Hog-an,    203    111.    525  34 

Rourk    V.    Miller,    3    Wash.    St. 

73  246 

Rousselot     V.     Kirwin,      8      La. 

Ann.    300  67 

Rowell   V.   Harris,    121    Ga.   239      127 
Rowen    v.    Alladio     (Ore.),      93 

Pac.    929  14,   108 

Rowland    v.    Harmon,     24     Ore. 
529  112,   122 

V.    Sworts,    63    Hun    625  162 

Rowley    v.    James,     31    111.    298 

240,    274 
V.    Varnum,    15    Okla.    613  31 

Royal    V.    McPhail,    97    Ga.    457 

29,    229,    258,    296 
Royalance    v.    San    Luis    Hotel 

Co.    (Cal.),    15    Pac.    777 
Rudd   V.    Davis,    1    Hill    (N.    Y.) 
277 
V.    Littell     (Kv.),     45     S.    W. 
451 
Rude  V.    Mitchell,    97   Mo.    365 
Rugg  V.  Hoover,   28   Minn.   404 
Ruhland    v.    Alexander,    19    Pa. 

Co.    Ct.    R.    577 
Rumsey   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Baker,    35 

Mo.    App.    217 
Rumsey,    Etc.,    Co.    v.     Pieffer, 

108    Mo.    App.    486  223,    230 

Runey   v.    Rea,   7    Ore.    130  104 

Rupe    V.    New    Mexico    Lumber 

Ass'n.,    3    N.    M.    261  273 

Rusche    V.    Pittman,      34      Ind. 

App.   159  45,  143,  148a 

Rush    V.   Able,    90    Pa.    153  25 

V.    Pisher,     8     Phila.     (Pa.) 

44  176 

V.    Perot,    12     Phila.      (Pa.) 

175  27 

Russell  V.   Bell,   44  Pa.   47 

94,  99,  100,  108 
V.  Grant,  122  Mo.  161  164,  228 
V.    Hayden,    40    Minn.    88  105 

V.  Hayner,   130   Fed.    90 

8,    106,   110,   287 
V.  Painter,   50  Ark.   244  132 

Russ   Lumber,   &c.,   Co.   v.   Gar- 
rettson,    87    Cal.    589 

100,  243,  292,  296 
v.     Roggenkamp,      101      Cal. 

206  66 

Rust-Owen       Lumber      Co.       v. 
Fitch,   3  S.  Dak.   213   237,   239,    244 
V.   Holt.    60   Neb.    82        31,    35,    40 
Rutherford  v.   Cincinnati,   Etc., 

R.    Co.,    35    Ohio   St.    559  12,    44 

Ryals  v.   Smith,   102   Ga.   768  251 


95 

257 

30 
116 
110 

272 

77 


to  Sections.] 

Ryan   v.   Kelly,   9   Mo.   App.   396  77 

v.   Klock,   36   Hun   104  100 

v.    Train,    95    App.   Div.    73  284 
Ryan       Drug      Co.       v.       Rowe 

(Minn.).    69    N.    W.    468  47 

Ryman   v.  Dynch,  76  Iowa  587  196 
v.    Wolf,    6    Kulp.    (Pa.)    325 

22,  112 
Rynd  v.  Pittsburg  Natatorium, 

173    Pa.    237  172 
Ryndak   v.    Seawell,    76    P.    170, 

13    Okla.     737                     58,    74,  239 


Sabbaton    In   re,    2   Am.   Law  J. 

(Pa.)    83  12 

Sabin  v.   Connor,   Fed.  Cas.   No. 

12,197  6,    129 

Safe-Deposit,    Etc.,    Co.    v.    Col- 
umbia  Iron    &   Steel   Co.,    176 

Pa.    St.    536  103,    158 

Sage  V.  Stafford,  59  N.  T.  Supp. 

545  102 

Saginaw    Bay    Co.    v.    Engel,    9 

Ohio  Cir.   Ct.   632  130,   146 

Sagmeister    v.    Foss,    4    Wash. 

320  107 

St.      Clair     Building     Assn.     v. 

Hayes,    2    Ohio    Cir.    Ct.    225 

32,    81,    94,    120 
St.   Clair  Coal   Co.   v.   Martz,    75 ^ 

Pa.    384  "253 

St.  Croix  Lumber  Co.  v.  Dav'is, 

105    Iowa   27  121 

St.  John  v.  Hall,  41  Conn.   522     167 
St.    Louis      v.    O'Neill    Lumber 

Co.,    114   Mo.    74  146 

St.    Louis    Nat.    Stock   Tards    v. 

O'Reilly,    85     111.    546 

67.    97,    132,   135 
St.    Paul   Foundry   Co.   v.   Weg- 

mann,    40    Minn.    419  172 

St.  Paul  &c.  Brick  Co.  v.  Stout, 

45    Minn.    327  98,   113 

St.    Paul    Labor    Exch.    Co.    v. 

Eden,    48    Minn.    5  179 

St.  Paul  &c.  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bol- 
ton,   5    Wash.    763  143,   163 
St.   Paul's   Episcopal   Church   v. 

Giraud,    15    La.    Ann.    124  64 

St.    Paul's    Methodist       Church 

V.    Gorman,    10    O.    C.    D.    103      167 
St.    Peter's    Catholic    Church    v. 

Vannote,    (N.   J.)    56   A.    1037        54 
Salem    v.    Lane,    Etc.,    Co.,    189 

111.    593,    90    111.    App.    560 

10,   16,   48,   187,   236 
Salmen  Brick  &  Lumber  Co.  v. 

Le    Sassier,    106    La.    389  184 

Salter    v.    Goldberg    (Ala.),     43 

So.    571  103,    237,    261 

Salt    Lake    Hardware      Co.      v. 

Chainman    Mining,    Etc.,    Co., 

128    Fed.    509  99,    175 

Salt    Lake    Lithographing    Co. 

V.    Ibex    Mine,    Etc.,    Co.,     15 

Utah    440  21,   138,   234 

Salzer    Lumber    Co.    v.    Claffln 

(N.   Dak.),    113    N.   W.    1036      8,    26 
San    Antonio    Bldg.    &    L.    Assn. 

V.  Stewart,   94  Tex.   441  224 

Sandberg    v.     Palm,     53     Minn. 

252  204 


Ixviii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

Sandberg-    v.    Victor    Gold    etc. 
Min.     Co.     (Utah),     66       Pac. 

360  102 

Sanders,      &c.,      Brick      Co.      v. 

Barr,    76    Mo.    App.    380  173 

Sanderson    v.    Fleming,    37    Mo. 
App.    595  80,    114 

V.    Taft,    72    Mass.    533  33 

San      Diego      Lumber      Co.      v. 
Woolredge,    90    Cal.    574 

33,     34,     111,   119 
Sandiford    v.    Shideler,    26    Ind. 

App.   496  172 

Sanford   v.   Frost,   41  Conn.    617      97 
V.    Kunkel    (Utah),    85    Pac. 

363  129 

San    Francisco    Lumber    Co.    v. 
Bibb,    139   Cal.   192  182 

V.   O'Neil,    120   Cal.   455  79 

San      Francisco      Pav.      Co.      v. 
Fairfield,    134    Cal.    220 

24,    26,    77,    236,    276 
Sanitarv      Dist.       v.        Phoenix 
Powder      Mfg.      Co.,      79      111. 
App.    36  77 

San    Joaquin    Lumber     Co.      v. 

Welton,    115   Cal.    1  251 

San     Juan     Hardware     Co.     v. 

Carrothers,    7    Colo.    App.    413    213 
Sankey    v.    Burton,    196    Pa.    St. 

504  157 

San      Pedro      Lumber      Co.      v. 

West    (Cal.),   86   Pac.   993   255,   259 
Santa    Clara    Valley    Mill,    Etc., 
Co.    V.    Williams,    97    Cal.    318 

97,   286 
Santa     Cruz     Rock     Pavement 
Co.  V.  Lvons,  117   Cal.    212      4,  142 
V.    Lyons,    133   Cal.    114      107,    261 
Santa     Monica      Lrumber,      &c., 
Co.    V.    Hege,     119     Cal.       376 

36,   94,   96,  143,  273 
Sargeant   v.   Daunoy,   14   La.    43    186 
Sarles  v.   Sharlow,   5  Dak.   100     123 
Saunders  v.  Bennett,   160  Mass. 
48  36,   126 

V.  Tuscumbia  Roofing  & 
Plumbing-  Co.  (Ala.), 
41    So.    982  31,    259 

Sautter        v.        McDonald,        12 

Wash.   27  112,    119 

Savannah,  Etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Calla- 
han.   49   Ga.    506  48 
V.   Grant,   56  Ga.   68  43 
Savings      Bank     v.      Powhatan 
Clay  Mfg.   Co.    (Va.),   46   S.   E. 
294                                                             188 
Savoy  V.  Dudley,   168  Mass.  538   129 
V.  Jones,  2  Rawle   (Pa.),  343 

47,   139 
Sawver-Austin    Liimber    Co.    v. 
Clark,   172  Mo.   558 

27,     104,     236,     237 
V.    Clark,    82    Mo.    App.    225 

11,    236 
Sawyer        Goodman        Co.        v. 

Neagle,    110    111.    App.    178  101 

Savre-Newton    Lumber    Co.     v. 
Park,    4    Colo.    App.    482 

90,    105,    229 
V.  Union  Bank,   6  Colo.  App. 
541  58,     67,     168 

Scales      V.      Griffin,      2      Dougl. 
(Mich.)    54  27,   139 


to  iSections.] 

Scannell    v.    Hub   Brewing   Co., 

178    Mass.    288  17,    250 

Scannevin  v.  Consolidated 
Mineral  Water  Co.,  25  R.  I. 
318  14 

Scerbo  v.   Smith,   16   Misc.   Rep. 

102  241,    284 

Schaar    v.    Knickerbocker      Ice 

Co.,    149    111.    441  53,    58 

Schacttler      v.       Gardiner,       41 

How.    Prac.    (N.   Y.)    243      284,   286 
Schaefer-Meyer     Brewing      Co. 
V.    Meyer,    19    Ky.    Law    Rep. 
411  199 

SchaefCer  v.  Lohman,  34  Mo. 
68  224,    225 

v.   Rohrbach,   1   Wilcox    (Pa.) 

250  99,    123 

Schaettler      v.        Gardiner,        4 

Daly    (N.   Y.)    56  131 

Schaffer  v.  Hull,   2  Clark   (Pa.) 

93  104 

Schalk   V.   Norris,   7    Misc.   Rep. 

20  166 

Schallert-Ganahl  Dumber  Co. 
V.    Neal,    90    Cal.    213  171 

V.    Neal,    91    Cal.    362  121,    194 

V.     ?:beldon     (Cal.),     32     Pac. 

235  96 

Schaper    v.    Bibb,    71    Md.    145         14 
Scheible  v.   Schickler,   63   Minn. 

471  98,   270 

Scheibner      v.        Cohnen,        108 

Mich.    165  121 

Scheid    v.   Rapp.   121   Pa.    593  173 

Schenck  v.   Uber,   81   Pa.   31     48,   58 
Schenley's   Appeal,    70    Pa.    98 

139,   140,  293 
Scherrer  v.   Music  Hall   Co.,    18 

N.    Y.    Supp.    459  185 

Schillinger  Cement,  Etc.,  Co. 
v.   Arnott,   14  N.   Y.   Supp.   326 

185,  232,  242,  244 
Schingler    v.    Green,     149     Cal. 

752  261 

Schmalz    v.    Mead,    125     N.     Y. 

188  27,    128 

Schmeiding    v.    Ewing-,    57    Mo. 

78  98,     292 

Schmelzer  v.  Chicago  Ave. 
Sash,  Etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  85  111. 
App.    596  261 

Schmid    v.    Busch,    97    Cal.    184 

57,    246 
v.      Improvement      Co.,      162 
Pa.    St.    214  49 

Schmidt   Ex   Parte,   62   Ala.    252   271 
Schmidt      v.      Gilson,      14      Wis. 
514  177,    250,    274 

V.    Joseph,    65    Ala.    475  25 

V.     Stetler,     21     Plttsb.    Leg. 

J     34  277 

V.    T\niliams,    89    111.    117  283 

Schmohl    V.    O'Brien,    25    Misc. 

Rep.    699  65 

Schnaufer     v.      Ahr,      53      Misc. 

Rep.    299  27 

Schneider  v.  Hobein,  41  How. 
Prac.    (N.    Y.)    232  67,    286 

V.    Kolthoff,    59    Ind.    568 

45,   82,    177,    216.    218 
Schneiderhorst -v.  Luecking,   26 
Ohio    St.    47  68,      69 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixix 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 
Schnell    v.     Clements,     73     111. 


/I  1   n  ^  fi  Q 

Schofleld      V.       Stout,       59      Ga. 

537  12,    14 

Scholes    V.    Hughes,      77      Tex. 

482  105 

Scholl    V.    Gerhab,    93    Pa.    346 

124,    249 
School      Dist.      V.      Howell,      44 

Kan.    285  116 

School    Town    v.      Gebhart,      61 

Ind.    187  241,   213,   290 

Schraden   v.   Burr,   31   Leg.   Int. 

(Pa.)    405  126 

Schrieber     v.     Citizens'     Bank, 

99    Va.    257  127,    144,    195 

Schroeder       v.       Galland,       134 
Pa.   277  54,   57 

V.    Mueller,    33    Mo.    App.    28 

85,    122,    195,    200 
Sehroth    v.    Black,    50    111.    App. 

168  94,  111,  121,  249 

Schubert    v.     Crowley,     33     Mo. 

564  75 

Schukraft  v.  Ruck,   6   Daly   (N. 

Y.)    1  186 

Schulenberg      v.      Bascom,      38 
Mo.   188  77 

V.    Gibson,   15   Mo.    281  99 

V.    Hayden,    146   Mo.    583  162 

V.    Memphis,    Etc.,     R.     Co., 
67    Mo.    442  10 

V.    Prairie    Home    Inst.,     65 

Mo.    295  19 

V.  Robinson,   5   Mo.  App.   561  177 
V.  Vrooman,  7   Mo.  App.   133 

85,    98 
V.    Werner,    6    Mo.    App.    292 

117,    230 
Schulenberg,        Etc.,       Lumber 
Co.    V.   Johnson,    38   Mo.    App. 
404  21 

V.    Strimple,    33      Mo.     App. 

154  94,    117,    122,    295 

Schultz      V.     Asay,      2      Penny. 
(Pa.)    411  85 

V.   Hay,   62   111.   157  65 

Schultze    V.    Alamo    Ice,     Etc., 
Co.,    2    Tex.    Civ.    App.    236 

26,   157,   272 
V.    Goodstein,    82    App.    Div. 

316  259,    261,   274 

Schuyler    v.    Hayward,     67     N. 

Y.    253  210 

Schwab   V.    Frieze    (Mo.),    81    S. 

W.    1174  94 

Schwartz     v.     Allen,     7      N.      Y. 

Supp.    5  14,    119 

V.   Cronan,   30  La.  Ann.   993        54 

V.    Knight,    74    Cal.    432  95 

V.    Salter,    40    La.    Ann.    264 

141,   277 

V.    Sanders,    46    111.    18  25,    49 

Scott  V.  Christianson,   110  Wis. 

164  112 

V.   Cook,  8  Mo.  App.  193  97 

V.    Goldinhorst,    123   Ind.   268 

13,    45,   82,   104,   216,   224 
V.  Hempel,   33   Fla.   313  74 

V.  Reeve,   10  N.  J.  Law  J.  12     27 
V.  Roberts,  21  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R. 

491  264 

V.    Scott,    196    Pa.    St.    132  21    i 


V.     Senderling,    7    Leg.    Int. 

(Pa.)    42  106 

V.       Ward,       4       G.      Greene 

(Iowa)    112  116 

Scott   Mfg.    Co.   V.   Morgan,    217 

Pa.    367  267 

Scroggin    v.    National    Lumber 

Co.,    41    Neb.     195  40,    141 

Scudder    v.     Harden,     31    N.    J 

Eq.    503  ■      55 

Seaman     v.    Paddock,      51      Mo 

App.    465  26,'   239 

Searle,     Etc.,    Lumber     Co.      v 

Jones    (Neb.),   114  N.  W.   783     261 
Sears    v.    Wise,    64    N.    Y.    Supp. 

1063  2  Q 

Sears   &   Woods   In   re,    23   Ont 

R.    474  ■      g7 

Seary    v.    Wegenaar,    120    Apn 

Div.    419  993 

Seaton       v.      Chamberlain,       32 

Kan.    239  1Q3 

o     y:,^'?°"'   35   Kan.    663  220 

beattle    Lumber    Co.    v.    Swee- 
ney,   33    Wash.    691 

«oot.,       t:..       ^^^h  106'   110'   115.  239 
Seattle,  Etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ah  Kow 

2    Wash.    T.    36  6     99 

becrist     V.     Delaware     County' 
^  Com'rs.,    100    Ind._  59  45,    286 

Security  Mortgage,  Etc.,  Co    v 

Caruthers,    11   Tex.   Civ.   App! 

430  I  161,    2'^7     253 

Security      Nat.      Bank      v.:     St' 

Croix    Power    Co.,     II7    \vis 
o  ^11    .   ,  65,   108,   237,'   287 

Sedgwick    V.     Concord     Apart- 
ment House  Co.,  104  111.  App. 

5  49,  121,  213,  218,  219 

V.    Patterson,    2    Posey    Un- 

rep.    Cas.    (Tex.)    352        241 
Seely    v.   Neill    (Colo.),    86    Pac. 

9g  237 
Seeman    v.    Biemann,    108    Wis' 

^^^  a  u    ,.     53,  54,  57,  64,  175,   207 

v.    Schultze,    100    Ga.    603  15 

Seibel    v.    Bath,    5    Wyo.    409  30 

Seibol    V.    Simeon,    62    Mo.    255      190 

Seibs    V.    Engelhardt,     78     Ala. 

508  /  76 

Seidel    v.   Bloeser,    77    Mo.   App. 

172  /  138 

Seiders,    Etc.,    Boiler    Works   v. 

Lewis,  21  Pa./ Co.   Ct.   R.   SO  12 

Seiglestyle    v.  /  Diesenroth,     75 

Ky.    296  /  233 

Seiler  v.   Schatefer,    40    111.   App. 

74  134 

Seltz  V.  Union  Pac.  Ry.  Co.,   16 

Kan.    133  140 

Selden    v.    Meeks,    17    Cal.    128 

IS,  116 
Sellwood    Lumber    Co.    v.    Mon- 

nell,    26    Ore.    267  24 

Selma    Sash    Factory    v.    Stod- 
dard,   116    Ala.    251  4 
Seltzer   v.    Robbins,    181   Pa.    St. 

451  154 

Sener    v.    Bare,    12    Montg.    Co. 

Law    Rep'r.    (Pa.)    115  57 

Senior    v.    Brebnor,    22    111.    252 

34.  240 
Sens  V.  Trentune,  54  Tex.  218  67 
Sergeant  v.  Denby,  87  Va.  206     134 


Ixx 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Service    v.    ^Mc^Iahon     (Wash.). 

85   Pac    33  218 

Sest   V.   Sanford,   112  N.   C.   660      297 
Bewail    V.    Duplessis,      2      Rob. 

(La.)    66  199 

Seward     v.      Mathers,    8      Kulp 

(Pa.)   330  205 

Sexton    V.    Alberti,      T8      Tenn. 
452  281 

V.    Weaver,     141    Mass.     273 

22,  108,  116,  122,  205,  298 
Sevmour    v.     Davis,    35     Conn. 

264  283 

Shaeffer  v.   Weed,    8   111.   511 

151,    153,    197,    224,    248 
Shafer    v.    Archibald,    116    Ind. 

29 
Shaffer   v.    Hull,    3    Pa.    Law   J. 
321 
V.   Hull,    3    Clark    (Pa.)    321 
Shaffner  v.   Leahy,   21  Mo.   App. 

110 
Shannon    v.     Broadbent,    2    Pa. 
Dist.    R.    220 
V.    Broadbent,    162    Pa.    194 
v.     McDuffee,     2     Pa.     Dist. 

230 
V.    Philadelphia     Home,     16 

Pa.   Super.   Ct.  250 
V.    Shultz,    87    Pa.    481 
Shapiro     v.     Schultz,      32      Ind. 

App.    219 
Shapleig-h   v.   Hull,   21   Colo.   419 
Shapnack    v.     Wilson,     1     Jour. 

Juris.    (Pa.)   93 
Sharkey    v.    Miller,    69    111.    650 
270, 
Sharpe  v.   Clifford,   44  Ind.  258 
V.     Speng-ler,     48     Miss.     360 


56 


48 
114 


250 


110 

246 


231 


107 


167 
27 


154 


273 
216 


298 


68 


V.    Tatnall,    5   Del.    Ch.    302 
Sharon   Town  Co.  v.  Morris,  39 
Kan.    377  118,    228, 

Shattuck      V.       Beardsley,        46 

Conn.   386  94,  101,   121 

Shaunessv  v.   American    Surety 

Co.    (Cal.),    69   Pac.    250  169 

Shaver    v.     Murdoek,      36      Cal. 

298  57     64 

Shaw   V.    Allen,    24   "Wis.    563         '238 

V.  Barnes,   5  Pa.  St.  18      104,   113 

V.   Bryan,   39  Mo.  App.   523  74 

V.    Chica.?o    Sash    Mfg-.    Co., 

144    111.     520 
V.   First    Associated   Church, 

39    Pa.    226 
V.    Fjellman,    72    Minn.    465 
V.    Stewart,    43    Kan.    572 
V.    Tompson    105    Mass.    345 
V.    Toung-,    87    Me.    271 

8,    35,    139 
Shearer      v.      Rasmussen,      102 
Wis.    585 
V.  Wilder,   56  Kan.   252 
Sheehan    v.    South    River   Brick 

Co.,    Ill   Ga.   444 
Sheehv   v.    Fulton,    38    Neb.    691 
Sheer  v.   Cummings,   SO   Tex.   29 
Sheffield    v.    Earlv,    73    Hun    173 

131,  185 

V.    Loeffler,    50    Hun    606  64 

V.    Murray,    80    Hun    555  182 

Sheffield  Furnace  Co.  v.   With- 

erow,    149    U.    S.    574  132 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 

Shelby   v.   Hicks,    37    Tenn.    197 

56, 
Shellabarger      v.      Bishop,      14 

Kan.  432 
V.  Thayer,   15  Kan.   619 
Shenandoah  Val.  R.  Co.  v.  Mil- 
ler,  80   Va.   821  65,   127, 
Shepardson      v.      Johnson,      60 

Iowa    239 
Shepherd  v.  Leeds,  12  La.  Ann. 

1 
Sheppard      v.     Messeng-er,      107 

Iowa  717  223, 

Sheridan        v.        Cameron,        65 

Mich.    680 
Sherman    v.    Thompson,    7      Pa. 

Super.   Ct.  555 
Sherry    v.    Madler    (Wis.),    101 

N.  W.    1095  49,    251,    265, 

v.    Schraag-e,    48    V^is.    93 
Shickle,      Etc.,      Iron      Co.      v. 

Council     Bluffs    Waterworks 

Co.,   33   Fed.   13 
Shields    v.     Garrett,     12    Phila. 

(Pa.)    458 
V.    Keys,    24    Iowa    298 

129,  228, 
V.    Morrow,    51    Tex.    393 
V.    Sorg,    129    111.    App.    266 

94,  112,   113,  175, 
Shilling    V.    Templeton,    66    Ind. 

585  32, 

Shine    v.    Heimburger,    60      Mo. 

App.    174 
Shinn   v.    Matheny,    48   111.   App. 

135 
Shoop   V.   Powles,    13    Md.    304 
Short   V.   Ames,    121    Pa.    530 
V.    Miller,    120    Pa.    470 
V.  Stephens,   92  Mo.  App.   151 
V.   Cole,   31   Pittsta.    (Pa.)    409 
Shotwell    V.    Kilgore,    26    Miss. 

125 
Showalter      v.      Lowndes      (W. 

Va.),    49    S.    E.    448  11, 

Shreveport    Nat.    Bank    v.    Ma- 
ple,    119    La.    41 
Shropshire   v.   Duncan,   25   Neb. 

485 
Shryock  v.  Hensel,  95  Md.-  614 
Shull   V.   Best    (Neb.),   93  N.  ^■. 

753  135,    275, 

Shulman    v.    Maison,    25    Misc. 

Rep.    765 
Sibley  v.   Casey,    6   Mo.    164 
Sicardi     v.     Keystone     Oil    Co., 

149  Pa.   139 
Sickman    v.    Wollett,    31    Colo. 


297 

188 


256 
96 
97 

42 


167 


75 
27 
26 


234 

99 
68 

296 

156 

150 

283 

220 

141 

296 
123 

179 
116 

281 

58 

235 
240 
186 

257 
67 

105 
12 
11 
32 

58 

12 


58 
Sidlinger    v.    Kerkow, 

42 
Siebrecht 

437 
Siegmund 

App.   95 


V.     Hogan, 


74,  109, 

82    Cal. 

30,    68, 

99    Wis. 


Kellogg,    38    Ind. 
18,  45,  82,  108, 
Sierra    Nevada    Lumber    Co.    v. 
"V^Tiitmore,    24  Utah    120 

56,    68,    126, 
Sill   V.   Wright,   21    Pittsb.   Leg-. 

J.    (Pa.)    190 
Silvester    v.    Coe    Quartz    Mine 

Co.,    80   Cal.   510 
Simmons  v.  Carrier,  60  Mo.  581 


189 
106 

282 

55 
26 

293 

299 

272 

55 

118 

127 
155 

42 
19 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixxi 


[References  are  to  Sections.'] 


Simmonson  Bros.  Mfg-.  Co.  v. 
Citizens'  State  Bank,  105 
Iowa  264  197 

Simon    v.    Blocks,    16    111.    App. 

450  34 

Simonds    v.     Buford,      18      Ind. 

176  76,   82,   227 

Simonds  Furnace   Co.   In  re,  30 

Misc.    Rep.    209  10,   39 

Simons  v.  Webster,   108  Cal.   16  166 
Simonsen     v.      Stachlewicz,      82 

Wis.    338  181 

Simonson  v.  Grant,  36  Minn. 
439  170 

V.  Citizens'   State  Bank,   105 

Iowa    264  56,   121,   233 

Simonton      v.      Cicero     Lumber 

Co.,    108    111.    App.    481  65,    67 

Simpson  v.  Cameron,  3  Pa. 
Dist.    R.    612  122 

V.    New    Orleans,      109      La. 

897  66,    67 

V.    Dalrymple,    65    Mass.    308 

238     242 
V.    Masteron     (Tex.),     31     s'. 

W.   419  188 

V.    Murray,    2    Pa.    76  277 

Sinclair      v.      Pitch,      3      E.      D. 

Smith     (N.    Y.)     677  150,   284 

Singerlv  v.  Cawley,  26  Pa. 
248  105 

V.    Doerr,    62    Pa.    9  9,    99 

Sinnickson    v.    Lynch,    25    N.    J. 

Law    317  229 

Sisson    V.    Holcomb,     58    Mich. 

634  80,    139 

Shackleford    v.     Beck,     80    Va. 

573  117 

Skillin    V.   Moore,    79   Me.    554  86 

Skrainka    v.     Rohan,      IS      Mo. 

App.    340  10 

Skvrme    v.    Occidental    Mill,    8 

Nev.    219  90,    98,    165,    167,    249 

Slack   V.    Collins,    145    Ind.    569  1 

Slade    V.   Amarillo   Lumber   Co. 

(Tex.),    93    S.   W.    475  229 

Slag-le  V.   De   Goover,   115   Iowa 

401  169 

Slentz    V.    Kosminsky,    Dayton 

(Ohio)    335  38 

Slight    V.    Patton,    96    Cal.    384 

114,  249 
Slingerland   v.   Binns,    56    N.   J. 
Eq.    413  66 

V.  Lindsley,  1  N.  J.  L.  115       150 
Slocum    V.    Caldwell,      12      Ky. 

514  138,    163 

Sly   V.    Pattee,    58    N.   H.    102  271 

Small  V.  Foley,  8  Colo.  App. 
435  19.    80, 

114,    115,    119,    132,    136,    161,    221 
V.    Hammes    156    Ind.    556     148a 
Smallev     v.     Ashland     Brown- 
Stone   Co.,   114  Mich.   104    177,   247 
V.    Bodinus,    120    Mich.    363     118 
V.    Gearing,    121    Mich.    190, 
206  4, 

57,     fi7,     98,     191,     194,     195 
V.        Northwestern        Terra- 
Cotta  Co.,   113  Mich.   44 

8,    90,    247,    250 
Smallhouse   v.   Kentucky,   Etc., 
Co.,  2  Mont.   445  16 


Smaltz  V.  Hagy,  4  Phila.   (Pa.) 
99  98 

V.  Knott,  3  Grant  Cas   (Pa.) 

227  100,   117 

Smedley    v.    Conaway,    5    Clark 

(Pa.)     417  129,    158,   293 

Smith   In   re,  7  Leg.   Gaz.    (Pa.) 

31  130 

Smith  V.  Bailey,  8  Daly   (N.  T.) 
128  108,   115 

V.    Barnes,    38    Minn.    240  162 

V.    Butts,    72    Miss.    269  179 

V.    Central    Lumber   Co.,    113 
111.    App.    477  170,    241 

V.  New  York,   32   Misc.   Rep. 

380  90,    96,    185 

V.  Coe,   2  Hilt.    (N.  Y.)   365  67 

V.   Coe,   29   N.   Y.    666  269,   287 

V.     Corey,    3     E.     D.     Smith 

642  273,   274 

V.    De     Pontia      (Kan.),      54 

Pac.   514  281 

V.  Dodge  (N.  J.),  44  A.  639  144 
V.  Gauby,  43  Fla.  683  10,  150 
V.   Gill,   37  Minn.   455  262,   284 

V.   Gilmore,    34   Wkly.   Notes 

Cas.    (Pa.)    128  110 

V.  Haley,  41  Mo.  App.  611  116 
V.    Headley,    33    Minn.      384 

86,  100,  104,  117 
V.     Huckabv,     4     "Tex.     Civ. 

App.    80  143 

V.  Hurd,   50   Minn.    503  131 

V.     Iowa    Citv      Loan,      Etc., 

Assn.,   60   Iowa  164  179 

V.    Johnson,      2      MacArthur 

(D.  C.)   481        30,  118,  176,  237 
V.    Kennedy,    89    111.    485  15 

V.    Klinger,    9     Pa.     Co.    Ct. 

301  234 

V.  Levick.  153  Pa.  522  57,  64 
V.    Mcintosh,     3      Brit.      Col. 

26  8,   100 

V.    Merriam,    67     Barb.      (N. 

Y.)    403  67 

V.  Moore,   26  111.   392  163 

V.    Nelson,     2     Phila.      (Pa.) 

113  267 

V.     Newljauer,     144    Ind.     95 

4,  45,  82,  105,  186,  204,  239 
V.  Norris,  120  Mass.  58  49,  121 
V.    Parsons,    37    Neb.    677  177 

V.    Phelps,    63    Mo.    585  282 

V.    RupTgiero,    52    App.    Div. 

382  261 

V.  Ruggiero,  173  N.  Y.  614  261 
V.  Sarver  (Pa.).  7  Atl.  99  117 
V.  Schile,  81  App.  Div.  192  66 
V.    Shaffer,    46    Md.    573  279 

V.    Shaffer,    50    Md.    132  126 

V.   Sheltering  Arms,   89  Hun 

70  64,  66 

V.    St.    Paul    Fire,    Etc.,    Ins. 

Co.,  106  Iowa  225  138,  140 
V.  Tate,  30  Ind.  App.  367  216 
V.  Van  Hoose,  110  Ga.  633  239 
V.    Wilcox     (Ore.),     74    Pac. 

708  49,   126,    207,    261 

V.    Wilcox     (Ore.),     75    Pac. 

710  127,     194 

V.    Wilkins,    31    Ore.    421  235 

V.    Wilkins,    38    Ore.    593  164 

V.       Woodruff,       1       Handy 

(Ohio)    276  44,    140 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[Refereiices  are 

Smith-Anthonv     Stove     Co.     v. 

Speer,    65    Mo.   App.    87  22,    74 

Smith    Bridge    Co.    v.    Bowman, 
41    Ohio    St.    37  10,    44,    SI 

V.    Louisville,    Etc.,    Ry.    Co., 

72    111.    506  58 

Smith    Woolen    Mach.      Co.      v. 

Browne,    206    Pa.    543  141 

Smyers   v.    Beam,    158    Pa.    57  12 

Smyth    V.    Armstrong,    2    W.    N. 

C.    (Pa.)    383  246 

Snaith    v.    Smith,    5    Misc.    Rep. 
593  262 

v.    Smith,    7    Misc.    Rep.    37     263 
Snell     v.    Bradbury,     139     Cal. 
379  34     41 

v.    Payne,    115    Cal.    218 

IS,    111,    121 
Snith    V.    Colloty,     69    N.    J.    L. 

365  2S7 

Snodg'rass    v.    Holland,    6    Colo. 

596  230 

Snow    v.    Council,    65    Ga.    123 

237,    269,    272,    277 
V.    Durham    County,    112    N. 

C.    335  10 

Snvder    v.    Crothers,     31     Leg. 
Int.    (Pa.)    404  119 

V.    Monroe    Eckstein    Brew- 
ing  Co.,   188   N".  Y.   576        56 
Sodini    v.    Winter,    32    Md.    130 


Sohns   V.   Murphy,    16S    111.    346 
Sommerville     v.      Walker,      168 
Mass.    388 
V.    Williams,    12    App.    D.    C. 
520 
Sontag  V.  Brennan,  75  111.  279 
Sorg   V.    Crandall,    129   111.    App 


126 
13 


58 
186 


113 


113,  126,  179 
111.  App. 


103 


14,  116 
&c.,  Ho- 


161 
164 


V.    Pfalzgraf, 
569 
Sosman  v.  Conlon,   57  Mo.  App. 
25 
V.   Great   Southern, 

tel    Co.,   116    Fed.    800       117 
Soule  V.  Dawes,  7   Cal.   575     26,   150 
V.   Dawes,   14   Cal.    247 
V.    Hurlbut,    58    Conn.    511 
Southard  v.  Moss,  2   Misc.   Rep. 

121  225 

South     End    Imp.    Co.    v.    Har- 
den   (N.  J.),   52   Atl.    1127      66,      75 
Southern    Building,    Etc.,    Assn. 
V.   Bean    (Tex.),   49   S.   W.   910 

161,  173 
Lumber 
Cal.     242 

56,  195 
V.    Peters     (Cal.),      86     Pac. 

816  115 

V.    Schmitt,   74    Cal.    625  286 

Southern      Elec.      Sup.      Co.     v. 

Rolla,    75    Mo.    App.    622  10,    14 

South    Fork   Canal    Co.    v.   Gor- 
don,   73   U.    S.    561 
South    Missouri    Lumber    Co.    v. 

^'right,    114   Mo.    326 
South     Omaha    Lumber     Co.    v. 
Central    Inv.     Co.,      32      Neb. 
529 
Southwark   Mortar   Co.   v.   Cas- 

sell,    15    Pa.    Super.    Ct.    330 
Spalding    v.    Burke,    33    Wash. 
679  126,    191,    209, 


Southern      'California 
Co.    V.    Jones,     133 


219 
123 


246 
175 


284 


to  Sections.] 

Spalding  v.  Dodge,  6  Mackey 
(D.    C.)    289  53 

v.    King,    1    E.    D.    Smith    (N. 

Y.)    717  127 

Spangler    v.     Green,      21      Colo. 

505  241 

Spare  v.   Walz,    14   Phila.    (Pa.) 

132  123,     246 

Spargo  V.   Nelson,   10   Utah  274    180 

Sparks  v.  Butte  County  Gravel 

&c.    Co.,    55    Cal.    389  99 

V.    Dunbar,     102     Ga.     129  58 

Spaulding      v.    Thompson      &c. 

Soc,    27    Conn.    573  53,      68 

Speakman    v.    Knight,    3    Phila. 

(Pa.)     25  86 

Spears  v.  De  Rant,  76  S.  Car. 
19  210 

v.    Lawrence,    10    Wash.    368 

108,  171 
Specht  V.  Stevens,  46  Neb.  874  110 
Specter    v.    Kimbell    etc.    Stone 

Co.,    7    Ind.    App.    157  5 

Speilman    v.   Shook,    11   Mo.   340        3 

Spence    v.    Brooks,    6    La.    Ann. 

63  41 

V.    Etter,    8    Ark.    69  174,   196 

V.    Griswold,    7    N.    Y.    Supp. 

145  230 

Spencer  v.  Barnett,  35  N.  Y. 
94  98 

V.    Dohertv,    17    R.    I.    89 

86,   250 
Spillman      v.    Gaines,    13      Ky. 

Law.    R.  33 

Spinney   v.   Griffith,   98   Cal.    149      41 
Spinning  v.  Blackburn,   13  Ohio 

St.    131  11,   240 

Spofford    V.    Huse,       91       Mass. 

575  220 

Spokane    etc.    Lumber      Co.    v. 

Loy,    21    "^^ash.    501  170,   185 

Spokane    Mfg.    etc.    Co.    v.    Mc- 

Chesney,    1    Wash.    St.    609  67 

Sprague  v.  Besant,  3  Man.  R. 
519  21 

V.    Brown,    178    Mass.    220  269 

V.  McDougall,   172   Mass.   553   158 
Sprague      Inv.    Co.    v.       Mouat 
Lumber    etc.    Co.,    (Colo.)     60 
Pac.   179  85,   106,   165,  167,   265 

Sprickerhoff      v.    Gordon,      120 

App.    Div.    748  103,   281 

Spring  Brook  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Watkins,  26  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
199  22,      29 

Springer  v.  Bowerman,  75  111. 
App.    352  7,      55 

V.    Keyser,    6    Whart.    (Pa.) 

187  77,   105 

V.    Kroeschell,    161    111.    358 

26,    104,   113 
Springer   Land    Ass'n.    v.    Ford, 
168    V.    S.    513  8,   104 

106,    111,    115,    121,     132,   207 
Springfield  Foundry  etc.   Co.  v. 

Cole,    130    Mo.    1  138 

Sproessig    v.    Keutel,    17    N.    Y. 

Supp.   839  49 

Sproulle    V.    McFarland,    (Tex.) 

56     S.     W.     693  126 

Spruck  V.  McRoberts,  64  Hun 
634  106 

V.   McRoberts,   139   X.   Y.   1^93 

36,      37 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixxiii 


Spruhen   v.    Stout,    52    Wis.    517 

30, 
Spruks  V.  Mursch,  1  Lack.  "Leg. 

N.     (Pa.)    247  19,      57 

Spurgion    v.    McElwain,    6    Ohio 

444  32 

Squier  v.    Parks,    56   Iowa   407     218 
Squires   v.   Fithian,   27    Mo.    134 

26,      74 
Stack    V.    Cresswell,    2    Montg'. 

Co.     Law.     (Pa.)     145  169 

Stagner  v.   Woodward,    (Kv.)    1 

S.    W.    583  188 

Standard    Oil    Co.    v.    Lane,    75 
Wis.    636  18 

V.    Sowden,    55    Ohio    St.    332 

81,    147,    177 
Standard   Radiator   Co.    v.    Fox, 

85    111.   App.    389  56 

Staples      V.        Somerville,      176 
Mass.    237  10 

V.   Ryan,   62   Fed.    635  280 

Stapleton    v.    Mayer,    17    Misc. 

Rep.    67  252 

Star    Mill    etc.     Co.    v.    Porter, 

(Cal.)    SS   Pac.   497  76 

Stark  V.  Crismore,  100  111.  App. 
392  271 

V.   Simmons,   54  Ohio   St.   435 

69,   209 
State  V.  Backus,   160  Ind.   682      148a 
V.   P,owman,    10   Ohio   St.    445   185 
V.  Cherokee  Iron  Mfg-.  Co.,  2 

Tex.    Civ.   App.    588  33 

State     V.    Drew,     43    Mo.    App. 
362  153,   293 

V.    Eads,    15    Iowa    114  283 

V.   Hailey,    71    Mo.   App.   200      138 
V.   Kerr,    51   Minn.    417  283 

V.    Mexican    Gulf    R.    Co.,    5 

La.    Ann.    333  41 

V.  Recorder,  28  La.  Ann.   534      41 
V.    Tiedermann,    10    Fed.     20      10 
State    of    Super.    Ct.,    11    Wash. 

366  296 

State    Sash    etc.       Mfg-.     Co.    v. 
Norwegian        Seminary,         45 
Minn.    254 
Staubsandt   v.   Lennon,   3    Misc. 

Rep.    90 
Stearns  v.  Jaudon,   27    Fla.    469 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 

99 


98 
120 
234 


Stearns-Roger  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Az- 
tec Gold  Min.  etc.  Co.,  (N. 
M.)     93    Pac.    706 

35,     40,     132,   261 

Stebbins  v.  Culbreth,  86  Md. 
656  14 

Stebed   v.   Stock,   31   Mo.    456  94 

Steel  V.  Argentine  Min.  Co., 
(Idaho)    42    Pac.    585  143 

Steel  Brick  Siding  Co.  v.  Mus- 
kegon Mach.  Co.,  98  Mich. 
616  237,   249 

Steele  v.  McBurney,  96  Iowa 
449  90 

Steeves  v.  Sinclair,  171  N.  T. 
676  36,   97,   107 

V.     Sinclair,     56     App.       Div. 

448  35,   101 

StefEes   v.    Lemke,    40    Minn.    27 

169,   172 

Steger  v.  Arctic  Refrigerating 
Co.,   89   Tenn.   453  8,     14 

Steigleman  v.  McBride,  17  111. 
300  134,    136,    140,    138,   186 


Stein    V.    Schultz,    23    111.    599  255 

Steininger  .V.    Raeman,    28    Mo. 

App.   594  ■  108,    251 

Steinmann    v.    Strimple,    29    Mo. 

App.    478  112,   229 

Steinm.etz  v.  Boudinot,  3  Serg. 
&    R.    (Pa.)    541  7,      58 

V.    St.    Paul    Trust    Co.,      50 

Minn.    445  220 

Stenberg      v.    Liennemann,      20 

Mont.   457  143 

Stephens  v.  Campbell,  13  Pa. 
Super.    Ct.    7  19 

V.    Duffey,    41    Ind.    App.    385 

44,   77,   82,    134,    271 
V.    Holmes,    64    111.    336  13 

V.    United    Stockyard    Co.,    5 

Ohio    Dec.    334  58,     66 

Stephenson  v.  Ballard,  82  Ind. 
87  29,    45,     82,   216,   217 

V.  Ballard,  50  Ind.  176  241 

Sternbergen   v.    Gowdy,    93    Kv. 

146  33 

Sterner  v.   Haas,    108   Mich.   488 

48,   200 
Stetson-Post  Mill  Co.  v.  Brown, 
21     Wash.    619  96 

V.    McDonald,    5    Wash.    496      120 
V.    Pacific    Amusement    Co., 

(VisiSh.)     79    P.     935  277 

Steuerwald      v.    Gill,    85      App. 

Div.    605  97,   284 

Stevens  v.  Burnham,  62  Neb. 
672  26,      36 

V.    Inhabitants,     114      Mass. 

476  26 

V.    Ogden,    130    N.    T.    182  '66 

V.   Wells,    36    Tenn.    387  ;47 

Stevens  Lumber  Co.  v.  Kansas 
City  Lumber  Co.,  72  Mo.  App. 
248  8,      21 

Stevenson  v.  Dick,  13  Phila. 
132  112 

V.   Stonehill,   5  Whart.    (Pa.) 

301  9 

V.    Woodward,    (Cal.)    86    P. 

990  26,    259,   267 

Stewart  v.  Christy,  15  La.  Ann. 

325  74 

V.     Gorgoza,    3    Hughes    459      12 

V.  McQuaide,  48  Pa.   191      96,   134 

V.    Simmons,    101    Minn.   375      239 

Stichtenoth  v.  Rife,  6  Ohio  Cir. 

Ct.    540  13,      44 

Stidger    v.    McPhee,    (Colo.)    62 

P.    332  95     257 

Stiles   V.    Leamy,    1   Phila.    29    '  116 
Stillings   V.    Haggerty,    59   Hun 

622  268 

Stimson  Mill  Co.  v.  Los  An- 
geles Traction  Co.,  141  Cal. 
30  18 

V.    Nolan,     (Cal.)     91    P.    262 

79,   146,   299 
V.     Rilev,     (Cal.)       42       Pac. 

1072  68,    128,   301 

Stockwell       V.       Carpenter,     27 

Iowa   119  163 

Stoermer  v.   Peoples  Bank,    152 

Ind.    104  148a,   216 

Stoke    V.    McCullough,    107    Pa. 

39  267 

Stokes    V.    Green,    10    S.    D.    286 

16,   122 


Ixxiv 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


stone  V.  Juvinall,  125  111.  App. 
562  98 

V.    Taylor,    72    Mo.    App.    482 

238,   254 
V.    Tyler,    173    111.    147 

6,    263,   277 
V.  Smith,  3  Daly  (N.  T.)   212   131 
Stoneback    v.    "Waters,    198    Pa. 

459  174 

Stoner's   Appeal,    135   Pa.    604  74 

Stoner    v.    Neff,    50    Pa.    253  16'j 

Stonewall  Jackson  Loan  &c. 
Ass'n.  V.  McGruder,  43  Ga. 
9  7 

Storer   v.    Bog-g-s,    (Neb.)    91    N. 

W.    555  270 

Stormfeltz's    Appeal,    135      Pa. 

604  74 

Stout   V.   Golden,   9   W.   Va.    231 

66,  lis 
V.    McLachlin,    38    Kan.    120 

35  55 
V.  Sawyer,  37  Mich.  313  '  47 
V.    Sower,    22    111.    App.    65 

134,    164,   212 
Strang   v.   Pray,    89    Tex.    525 

79,   140 
Stratton  v.   Shoenbar,    (Me.)    10 

Atl.    446  118 

Straus   V.   Finane,   3   N.   M.    260      212 
Strawick    v.    Munhall,    139    Pa. 

163  56 

Strawn  v.  Cogswell,   28   111.   457 

33,    210,   274 
Stroebel      v.    Ochse,    14      Misc. 

Rep.    522  53,      58 

Strong-  V.  Lake  Weir  Ass'n., 
25    Fla.    765  231 

V.    Van    Deursen,    23    N.    J. 

Eq.    369  33,   164 

Stryker  v.  Cassidy,  76  N.  T.  50     16 
Stuart    V.    Broome,    59    Tex.    466 

114,   186 
Stubbs  V.  Railroad  Co.,  65  Iowa 

513  121,   122 

Sturdevant   v.    Nugent,    9   Kulp. 

(Pa.)     176  118 

Sturges   V.   Green,    27    Kan.    237 

35,   270 
Sturm      V.    Ritz,    7      Dec.      Re. 

(Ohio)    133  49,    64,      68 

Stuvvesant  v.   Browning,   33   N, 

Y.    Super.    Ct.  160 

Succession  of  Cox,   32  La.  Ann. 

1035  41,   279 

Succession     of    Erard,     6     Rob. 

(La.)     333  144,   158 

Succession  of  Lenel,  34  La.  Ann. 

868  159 

Sullivan  v.  Brewster,  1  E.  D. 
Smith    (N.    Y.)    681  7,      94 

V.    Decker,    1    B.    D.    Smith, 

(N.    Y.)    699  230 

V.  Goodwin,  164  N.  Y.  583  185 

V.    Hancock,      2    Pa.     Super. 

Ct.    525  57 

V.    Johns,     5     Whart.     (Pa.) 

366  101,   298 

V.    Texas   Briquette   &c.    Co., 
(Tex.)     63     S.    W.    307 

156,   157 
V.    Treen,    13    "^"ash.    261 

85,   123 
Sullivan   Timber  Co.    v.   Brush- 
agel,    111    Ala.    114  284 


Sulzer    V.    Ross,    12    Pa.    Super. 

Ct.     206  182,    183,   189 

Sulzer-Vogt     Co.     v.     Rushville 

Co.,    160    Ind.    202 

45,    74,   75,   82,    97,   148a 
Summerlin      v.    Thompson,      31 

Fla.    369  4,   7,    234,   243 

Summerman  v.   Knowles,    33  N. 

J.   L.    202  241 

Summers    v.    Beard,   24   Ont.    R. 

641  97 

Summerton  v.  Hanson,  117  Cal. 

252  170 

Summerville    v.    Wann,    37    Pa. 

182  12 

Sunset    Brick    &    Tile      Co.    v. 

Stratton,   (Tex.)   53   S.  W.  703 

64,     67 
Sunshine    v.    Morgan,    39    Misc. 

Rep.    778  36 

Sutherland    v.    Ryerson,    24    111. 

517  197,   247 

Suydam    v.    Holden,     11       Abb. 

Prac.     (N.    Y.)    329  228,   281 

Swain   v.   Barrow,    11   La.   Ann. 

547  177 

Sweatt    V.    Hunt,     (Wash.)     84 

Pac.    1  49,   299 

Sweenev       Hardware       Co.       v. 

Gardner,    (S.   Dak.)    99   N.  W. 

1105  36 

Sweenv    v.    McGittigan,    20    Pa. 

319  131 

V.  Meyer,    124   Cal.    512     237,   301 
Sweet  V.   James,   2   R.   I.   270 

1,   17.   18,   43,    47,   48,   98,   296 
Sweetzer  v.  Hardwick,  67  Iowa 

488  244 

Swenk     v.     Irwin,     8     Del.     Co. 

(Pa.)    6  245 

Swift  v.   Calnan,  103  Iowa  206       30 
Swift  Company  v.  Doll,  39  Ind. 

App.     653  45,      57 

Swope     V.     Stantzenberger,     59 

Tex.    387  103,   104 

T 

Tabor    v.    Armstrong,     9    Colo. 

285,    12    Pac.     157  17,   53,   128 

Tabor-Pierce  Lumber  Co.  v.  In- 
ternational Trust  Co.,  (Colo.) 
75    P.    150  22,    80,      95 

Tacoma  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Kennedv,     4    Wash.     305  109 

V.   Wilson,    3    Wash.    St.    786 

109,   112 
V.  Wolff.   5  Wash.   264  109 

Taggart   v.   Kem,    22    Ind.   App. 

271  45,   140 

Talbot  v.   Goddard,    55   Ind.   496   216 
Taliaferro    v.    Stevenson,    58   N. 

J.    Law    165  178 

Tanner  v.   Bell,    61    Ga.   584  164 

Tanxlev    v.    Lampkin,    39    S.    E. 

473,    113    Ga.    1007  261 

Tatum   V.    Cherry,    12   Or.   135 

33,     53 
Taunton   Sav.   Bank  v.   Burrell, 

179    Mass.    421  183 

Tavlor  v.    Grain,   16   La.    290  41 

V.    Dall    Lead    &c.    Co.,    131 

Wis.    348  75,   76.   175 

V.  Dutcher,   60  App.  Div.  531 

191 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixxv 


[References  are  to  Sections.'] 


Tavlor  v.   Gilsdorff,   74   111.   354      139 
V.    Hoiick,    65    Tex.    364  4,      33 

V.  La  Bar,  25  N.  J.  Sq.  222  160 
V.  Montg-omery,  20  Pa.  443  135 
V.    Murphy,    148    Pa.    337 

o7,   128,   210 
V.    Netherwood,    91      Va.    88 

104,    116,    120,   286 
V.   Reed,    (N.  J.)    52   A.   579  77 

V.    Springfield    Lum;)ar    Co., 

180   Mass.    3  157 

V.     Tennessee    Lumbar     Co., 

107    Tenn.    41  197,   2S6 

V.  Wahl,   69  N.  J.  L.  471 

07,   115,   r35 
V.       Wittkamp,       13       P'lila. 
(Pa.)     31  100 

Teachout    v.    Cleveland,    4   Ohio 

Dec.   376  237 

Teahen    v.    Nelson,    6    Utah    363 

127,  129,  242 
Teal  V.  Spang-ler,  72  Ind.  380  176 
Teaz  V.  Chrvstie,  2  E.  D.  Smith 

(N.    Y.)     621  177 

Tebay    v.    Kirkpatrick    &    Co., 

146    Pa.    120  57 

Telfer  v.  Kierstead,  2  Hilt.    (N. 

Y.)     577  166 

Tell   V.  Woodruff,    45   Minn.   10  6 

Templeton  v.  Home,  82  111.  491   198 
Tenney   v.    Sly,    54    Ark.    93  85 

Tenny   v.    Anderson   Water   &c. 

Co.,    67    S.    C.    11  209,   218 

Tenth      Nat.      Bank      v.      Smith 

Const.    Co.,    218    Pa.    584      31,     77 
Ter    Knile    v.    Reddick,    (N.   J.) 

39    A.     1062  74 

Terry    v.    Prevo,    (Neb.)    95    N. 

W.    338  119 

Terwillig-er  v.  Wheeler,  81  App. 

Div.    460  10,    74,    86,   188,   284 

Texas  Builders'  Supply  Co.  v. 
National  Loan  &c.  Co.,  54 
(Tex.)    S.   W.    1059  66 

Thaxter   v.   Williams,    31   Mass. 

49  164,   211 

Thayer    v.    Williams,      65      Mo. 

App.   673  258 

Thielman    v.    Carr,    75    111.    3S5 

161,    204,    247 
V.    Burg-,    73    111.    293  245 

Thirtv-fifth   St.    &c.    Co.,    In    re. 

121    App.     Div.     625  183 

Thomas'    Estate    In    re.,    76    Pa. 

30  158 

Thomas   v.   Davis,    3    Phila.    171    155 
V.    Barber,    10    Md.    380  76 

v.    Board    of    Education,    71 

111.     283  10 

V.   Ellison,    57   Ark.    481  143 

V.    Hoge,    58    Kan.    166  162 

V.     Huesman,     10     Ohio     St. 

153  81,   116 

V.    James,      7      Watts    &    S. 

(Pa.)     381  117 

V.  Kiblinger,  77  Ind.  85  82,  99 
V.    Mowers,    27    Kan.    265 

130,   158 
V.     O'Donnell,     183     Pa.     St. 

145  245 

V.    Ownby,    1    White    &      W. 

(Tex.)     1212  229 

V.  Sahaglian,   57  Hun  591  284 

V.    Smith,    42   Pa.    68  106 


Thomas  v.  Stewart,  132  N.  Y. 
580  126,   144 

V.    Trustees,    71    111.    310  10 

41,    95,    240,    241,    242 
V.    Turner,    16    Md.    105      211,   214 
Thompson    v.   Baxter,    92   Tenn. 
305  16,      44 

v.    Porter,    14    Pa.    Co.      Ct. 

232  13 

V.    Shepard,    85   Ind.    352      31,      45 
V.    Spencer,    95    Iowa    265  96 

V.    Stephens,    (Iowa)    107    N. 

W.     1095  10 

V.  Wiekersham,   68    Tenn.   216   10 
V.    Yates,    28      How.      Prac. 

N.    Y.    142  67 

Thompson    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Smith, 

67    N.    H.    409  12 

Thompson-Starrett  Co.  v. 
Brooklyn  Heights  Realty 
Co.,    Ill    App.    Div.    358  284 

Thorn  v.  Heugh,  9  Leg-.  Int. 
(Pa.)    46  116,   259 

V.    Shields,    8    Pa.    Dist.    129 

124     253 
Thorpe  v.  Durbon,   45  Iowa   192*   164 
Thorpe       Block       Saving       &c. 
Ass'n.  V.  James,   13   Ind.  App. 
522  148a,    155,    161,   216 

Throckmorton     v.     Shelton,     68 

Conn.    413  277 

Thurman    v.    Pettitt,    72    Ga.    38      43 

Thurston    v.    Prentiss,    1    Mich. 

193  71 

V.   Schroeder,    6   R.   I.   272  255 

Tibbetts   V.    Moore,    23    Cal.   208 

103,    104,   105,    112,    130,    247,   272 
Tibbits    V.    Phipps,    163    N.      Y. 
580  121 

V.    Phipps,    30   App.    Div.    274   121 
Tice   V.   Atlantic   Const.   Co.,   52 

App.    Div.    284  10 

Tidball    v.    Holyoke,    (Neb.)    97 

N.    W.    1019  26,      80 

Tilford      V.    Wallace,    3      Watts 

(Pa.)    141  3 

Timmons  v.  Casey,  19  Tex.  Civ. 

App.    476  65 

Tinker    v.    Geraghtv,    1      E!.    D. 

Smith,    (N.  Y.)    687  105,   232 

Tinsley   v.   Boykin,   46    Tex.   592 

10,      25 
V.    Kemery,    (Mo.)    84    S.    W. 

993  184 

Tisdale  v.  Alabama  &c.  Lum- 
ber  Co.,    131    Ala.    456 

240,    243,    270 
V.  Moore,   8  Hun   (N.  Y.)    19      244 
Title  Guarantee  &c.  Co.  v.  Bur- 
dette,    (Md.)    65    A.    341  299 

V.    Wrenn,    35    Or.    62  42,   109 

Titus  V.   Gunn,  69   N.  J.  L.   410      168 
Titusville  Iron  Works  v.   Key- 
stone Oil  Co.,  122  Pa.   St.   627 

8,  103 
Tizzard      v.    Hug-hes,    3      Phila. 

(Pa.)    261  17 

Toan    V.    Russell,    111    111.    App. 

629  65,   255 

Toledo  &c.  R.  Co.  v.  Hamilton, 

134    U.    S.    296  147,   161 

Toledo  Novelty  Works  v.  Bern- 
heimer,    8    Minn.    118 

5,   58,   210,   286 
Tollheis   v.   James,    7   Ohio    Cir. 
Ct.   386  59,    66,      69 


Ixxvi 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


Tomlinson   v.   Degraw,   26   N.  J. 

L.    73  252,    253,    284 

Tommasi    v.    Bolger,    114    App. 

Div.    838  80,    191,    192,    261 

Tompkins    v.    Horton,    25    N.    J. 

Eq.   284  151,    228 

Tooker    v.    Rinaldo,    2    Abb.    N. 

C.    (N.    Y.)    334  263 

Toop    V.     Smith,     87    App.    Div. 

241  109,   211 

Topping-  V.  Brown,  63  111.  348        279 
Torrance    v.     Bowton,     96       111. 

App.    475  77 

V.   Catchley,   31   Ont.   R.   546        68 
Totten   Co.   v.   Muncie   Nail   Co., 

148    Ind.    372  19,    45,   216 

Tower  v.  Moore,  104  Iowa  345       162 
Towner  v.  Remick,  19  Mo.  App. 

205  76 

Townsend   v.   Cleveland   Co.,   18 

Ind.    App.    568  45 

V.    Harrison,    2   La.   Ann.    174      41 
V.  Wild,  1  Colo.  10  3,        7 

Tracy    v.    Kerr,    47    Kan.    656 

209,  227 
V.    Rogers,    09   111.    662  11,      24 

27,    260,    274,   278 
Trammell    v.    Hudmon,    86    Ala. 

472  76,    127,    229,   244,   260 

V.  Mount,  68  Tex.  210 

19,  130,  294 
Trask  V.  Searle,  21  Mass.  229  13 
Travis    v.    Meredith,    2      Marv. 

(Del.)    376  53 

v.    Smith,    6   N.   Y.    St.    371  54 

Treat    Lumber    Co.    v.    Warner, 

60    Wis.    183  225 

Treloar    v.    Hamilton,     225     111. 

102  5,   115 

Tremont    Hotel    Co.    v.       Rosa- 
mond,   2    Posey    (Tex.)    682  90 
Treusch    v.     Shryock,     51       Md. 

162  75,    77,    121,    130,    259,    271 

Trim    v.    Willousrhby,    44    How. 

Pr.     (N.    Y.)     189  7 

Tritch   v.   Norton,    10    Colo.    337 

26.  158,  164 
Troth  V.  Hunt,  8  Blackf.   (Ind.) 

580  159 

Truax  v.   Dixon,   17  Ont.   R.    366      56 
Trueblood      v.      Shellhouse,      19 

Ind.   App.   91  44,      76 

97,    139,    166,    216,    250,    255 
Truesdell  v.   Gay,   79   Mass.   311 

12,  15,   122 

Trullinger  v.  Kofoed,   7  Or.   228   179 

Trust   V.   Oil   Co..   10   C.   D.    372        44 

Trustees   v.   Davis,    85   Va.    193        95 

V.   Sanford,   17  Fla.   162      127,   183 

v.    Young,    63    Kv.    582 

129,    140,    151 
Trustees'     &c.    Ins.       Corp.       v. 

Bowling,   2   Kan.   App.   770  292 

Truxall    v.    Williams,    83    Tenn. 

427  13 

Tubridv      v.    Wright,    7      Misc. 

Rep.     403  153 

Tuck  V.  Moss  Mfg.  Co.,  127  Ga. 

729  16,   58,   68,   205 

Tucker   v.    Gest,    46    Mo.    339  29 

Tulloch     V.     Rogers,     52     Minn. 

114  105 

Tunis    V.    Lakeport    &c.    Ass'n. 

98  Cal.  285  132 

Turcott    V.   Hall,    8   Ala.    535  58 


Turner   v.   Parker,   10    Rob.    154     41 
V.     Robbins,     78    Ala.     592 

101,   105 

V  St.  John,   8  N.  D.   245  100 

115.   118.   119,   120,   157,   194 

V.    Strenzel,    70    Cal.    28  127 

V.     Wentworth,      119     Mass. 

459  97,   138 

Turney   v.    Saunders,    5    111.    527 

6,   139,   237 
V.    Saunders,    8    111.    239  281 

Turpin  v.  His  Creditors,  9  Mart. 

(O.    S.)    562  23,   41,   176 

Tuttle    V.    Howe,    14    Minn.    145 

10,    29.    134,   165 
Twelves  v.  Williams,   3   WTiart. 

(Pa.)    485  281 

Twitchell     v.     Devens,     45     Mo. 

App.   283  100,  103,  244,   254 

Tyler  v.  Jewett,  82  Ala.   93  10 

U 

Uber    V.    McAfee,     2    Pa.    Dist. 

372  102 

Ulrich  v.  Osborn,   106  Mo.  App. 

492  117 

Underhill  v.   Corwin,  15  111.  556      27 
Underwood       v.       Walcott,       85 

Mass.    464  121 

Union    Ass'n.    v.    Helberg,    152 

Ind.    139  148a,    216,   275 

Union    Building    &c.    Ass'n.    v. 

Hull,    135   Pa.    565  172 

Union     Lumber    Co.    v.     Simon, 

(Cal.)    89    P.    1077 

103,    239,    261,    267,   299 
Union    Pac.    Ry.    Co.    v.    David- 
son,   21    Colo.    93  229 
Union    &c.    Metal      Works      v. 

Dodge.    129   Cal.   390  169 

Union   Stock  Yards  State  Bank 

V.    Baker,    42   Neb.   880  178 

Union    Stove    Works    v.    Kling- 

ham,   164   N.   Y.   589        14,   119,   120 
Union    Trust    Co.      v.    Casserlj', 

122   Mich.   183  98,   121.   122,   194 

United    States      v.    City      Trust 

&c.   Co.,   21   App.   D.  C.   369  8 

United   States   &c.  Pump  Co.  v. 

Drexel,   53   Neb.   771  182 

United     States    Blowpipe    Co.    v. 

Spencer,   40  W.  Va.   698 

2.    71,    106,    174,    236,   257 
United  States  Inv.  Co.  v.  Phelps 

&c.    Windmill    Co.,     54    Kan. 

144  32 

United     States     Mortgage     &c. 

Co.  V.  Wood,  19  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 

R.    358  156.   240,   296 

United      States    Nat.    Bank      v. 

Bonacum,    33    Neb.    820  14 

United    States    Savings    &c.    Co. 

V.  Jones,  9  Wash.   434  109,   111 

University  v.   Reber,  43  Pa.  305      10 
Updike    V.     Skillman,    27    N.    J. 

Law    (3    Dutch)    131  12 

Urlau    V.    "U^eeth,    63    Neb.    883     261 
Uthoff  V.  Gerhard,  42  Mo.  App. 

256  121 

V 

Vail   V.    Meyer,    71   Ind.    159  49 

Valentine    v.    Ranson,    57    Iowa 
179  •  116 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixxvii 


[References  are 

Valley      Lumber      &c.      Co.      v. 

Driessel,    13    Idaho    662 

94,   98,   171 
V.   Nickerson,   12   Idaho    682 

55,    97,   260 
Van    Billiard  v.   Nace,    1   Grant, 

Cas.     (Pa.)    233  227 

Van      Busklrk      v.    Summitville 

Min.  Co.,    (Ind.)   78  N.  E.   208      281 
Van    Calvert    v.      McKinney,    2 

Posey    (Tex.)    345  18 

Van   Cleve  v.  Warndink,  2  Ohio 

Dec.    89  44 

Van   Cleve  Glass  Co.  v.  Wame- 

link,  10  O.  C.  D.  12  4,      56 

Van    Clief    v.   Van    Veehten,    48 

Hun    304  128 

V.   Van  Veehten,  55  Hun   467      54 
V.    Van    Veehten,    130    N.    Y. 

577  23,   49,   65,   126 

Van    Court   v.   Bushnell,    21    111. 

624  26,   176 

Van  Lone  v.  Whittmore,  19  111. 

App.  134 

Vandenberg    v.    Walton      Lum- 
ber   Co.,     (Okl.)     92    P.    149 

58,    195,  ^11 
Van    Denburg-h      v.    Greenbush, 

66    N.    y.    1  5 

Vanderpoel    v.   Knight,    102    111. 

App.    596  32 

Vanderpool    v.    La    Crosse      &c. 

R.  Co.,   44  Wis.   652  1 

Vandevender,    In  re,    2    Brow^ne 

(Pa.)    304  154 

Vandvne    v.    Vanness,    5    N.    J. 

Eq.    485  132,    159,   174 

Vandive      v.    Hodge,    4      Bush. 

(Ky.)     538  32 

Van    Horn      v.    Van      Dyke,    96 

Wis.    30  94 

Van    Kannel    &c.    Door    Co.    v. 

Sloane,    119    App.    Div.    214  165 

Van    Loan    v.    Heffner,    30    La. 

Ann.    1213  41 

Van    Pelt    v.    Dunford,    58      111. 

145  213 

v.    Hartough,    31    N.   J.    Law 

331  53 

Van    Riper    v.    Morton,    61    Mo. 

App.    440  140 

V.   Morton,   65  Mo.  App.   429      272 
Van  Stone  v.  Stillwell  &c.  Mfg. 

Co.,    142    U.    S.    964  2.   175 

Van    Villiard    v    Nace,    1    Grant 

Cas.    (Pa.)    233  260 

Van    Vronker    v.    Eastman,      7 

Mete.    (Mass.)    162  11 

Van    Winkle    v.    Stow,    23    Cal. 

457  220,   231 

Vason   V.   Bell,    53    Ga.    416  176 

Vass  V.  Otting,  22  Ky.  L.  551  7 

Veitch    V.    Clark,    (N.    J.)    57    A. 

272  68 

Vendome      &c.      Bath      Co.      v. 

Schettler,    2    "Wash.    St.    457  12 

Vermont    St.    Church    v.    Brose, 

104    111.    206  49 

Vernon  v.  Harper,   79   O.   S.  44 

Vickerie  v.  Spencer,  9  R.  I.  585   233 
Victoria  B)dg.  Ass'n.  v.  Kelsey, 

9    Ohio   Dec.    123  176,   177 

Vigo  Real   Estate  Co.  v.  Reese, 

(Ind.)    51  N.  E.   350  297 


to  Sections.] 

Vilas    V.    McDonough    Mfg.    Co., 

91    Wis.    607  158 

Villaume  v.   Kirchner,   85   N.  Y. 

S.   377  111,   276 

Vincent       v.       Snoqualmie    Mill 

Co.,    7    Wash.    566  43 

Vinton    v.    Builders'    &c.    Ass'n., 

109    Ind.    351  56 

Vitelli    V.    May,    120    App.    Div. 

448  76,    222 

Virgin  v.  Brubaker,   4  Nev.  31     164 

Viti    V.    Dixon,    12   Mo.    479  130 

Vogel  V.  Farrand,  26  Misc.  Rep. 

130  14 

V.    Luitwieler,     52    Hun    184 

58,    108,    144,    252 
V.    Whitmore,    72    Hun    417 

53,   128 
Volker-Scowcroft    Lumber    Co. 
V.   Vance,    (Utah),    88   P.   896 

2,      10 
Von  Den   Driesch  v.  Rohrig,   45 

App.    Div.    526  185 

Von    Dorn     v.    Mengedoht,       41 

Neb.    525  16 

Von    Platen    v.    Winterbotham, 

203    111.    198  54 

Von     Tobel      v.    Ostrander,    158 

111.    499  150 

Vordenbaumen   v.    Bartlett,   105 

La.    752  5,   47,   195 

Vorhees    v.    Beckwell,     10     Ind. 

App.  224  216,   224,   225,    239 

Vosseller    v.    Slater,    163    N.    Y.      / 

564  30,      85 

Vreeland  v.  Bovle,  37  N.  J. 
Law   346  123 

V.    Bramhall,    39    N.    J.    Law 

1  123 

V.    Ellsworth,    71    Iowa    347 

200,    221 
Vreeland    Bldg.    Co.    v.    Knick- 
erbocker   Sugar    Co.,    (N.    J.) 
68    Atl.    215  86,    123,    197,   208 

W 

Waddv  Blue  Grass  Creamery 
Co.  V.  Davis-Rankin  Bldg.  & 
Mfg.   Co.,    (Ky.)    45    S.   W.   895 

129,   142 
Wade    V.    Reitz,    18    Ind.    307 

82,     114,     123 
Wademan    v.    Thorp,    5    Watts 

(Pa.)    115  14 

Wagar  v.  Briscoe,  38  Mich.   5S7 

8,   24,   26,    132,    140,    280,   281 
Wagenhorst      v.       Wessner,       1 

Woodw.    Dec.    (Pa.)    151  235 

Wagner    In    re,    110    Fed.    931        162 
Wagner   v.    Darby,    49   Kan.   343      22 
V.    Dette,    2    Mo.      App.      254 

168,  172 
V.  Hansen,  103  Cal.  104  122,  255 
V.    Manbeck,    18    Pa.    Co.    Ct. 

471  25,   107,    110 

V.    McMillen,     72     Wis.     327 

183,     256 

Wahlstrom      v.      Trulson,      165 

Mass.    429  55,    57,    267 

Wakefield  v.  Latey,  39  Neb. 
285  106,    136 

V.    Mander.      L.    R.    5    C.    P. 

Div.    248  44 


Ixxviii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


— Wakefield    v.    Van    Dorn,    53 

Neb.    23  229,   231 

Walbridge   v.   Barrett,    21   Ohio 

Cir.  Ct.  522  147,   163 

Waldemeyer  v.  Loebig,  183  Mo. 

363  30 

Walden    v.    Robertson,    120   Mo. 

38  48,  85,  117,  122 

Waldo    V.   Walters,   17    Ind.    534      82 
"Waldroff  v.   Scott,   46   Tex.   1  292 

Walkam   v.   Henry,   7   Misc.   532 

104,    107 
Walkenhorst    v.    Coste,    33    Mo. 

401  229     292 

Walker  v.    Burt,    57   Ga.    20    "  '    220 
V.  Daimwood,  80  Ala.  245  212 

V.    House,    (Tex.),    24    S.    W. 

82  25 

V.    Hauss-Hijo,    1     Cal.     183 

80,    211 
V.    Newton,    53    Wis.    336  195 

V.    O'Donohoe,    67    Mo.    App. 

660  271 

V.   Queal,    91    Iowa   704  90 

Wall    V.    Robinson,    115     Mass. 

429  135 

Wallis    V.    Skain,    21     Ont.     R. 

532  112 

Walls    V.    Ducharme,    162    Mass. 

432  262 

"Walsh    V.    McMenomv,     74    Cal. 

356  10,    68 

TS'alter     v.      Powell,      13     Dist. 

(Pa.)    667  122,   176 

"Wambold   v.   Gehring,    109  Wis. 

122  64,   76 

Wang-    V.    Field,    26     La.     Ann. 

349  278 

■^^anganstein       v.       Jones,       61 

Minn.    262  16 

Ward  V.  Black,   7  Phila.  342  112 

V.   Conwell,   3   Del.   Co.    (Pa.) 

17  101 

V.    Crane,    118    Cal.    676 

12     94      132 
V.    Kilpatrick,    85    N.    y!    413 

119,   234,    266 
V.    Patterson,    46    Pa.    372  131 

Warden    v.    Sabins    (Kan.),    12 

Pac.    522  149 

Wardlaw    v.    Troy   Oil    Mill,    74 

S.  C.   368  21 

Wardsworth   v.   Hodge,   88   Ala. 

500  29,    33 

Waring    v.     Miller,     &c.,     Mfg. 

Co.,    36    S.    C.    310  86 

Warner    v.    Scottish    Mortgage, 
&c.,   Co.    (Tex.)   27   S.  W'.   S17      269 
V.    Yates,    118    Tenn.    548 

197,  223,  234 
Warner    Elevator    Mfg.    Co.    v. 
.Houston    (Tex.),  28   S.  W.   405      79 
V.    Maverick,    88    Tex.    489  79 

Warren     v.     Freeman,    187    Pa. 
St.    455  12,    267 

V.    Hopkins,    110    Cal.    506 

134,    155 
V.    Johnson,    33     Pa.      Super. 

Ct.    617  111 

V.   Lohn,   112    Ind.    213  4 

V.    Quade,    3    Wash.    St.    750 

100,    109,    112,    165 
V.    Smith,    44    Tex.    245  26,   86 

Washburn    v.    Burns,    34    N.    J. 
Law   18  197,    250,   251 


Washburn  v.  Kahler,  97  Cal.  58 

181,   262 
•     V.    Russel,    1    Pa.    499  103 

Washington  Bridge  Co.  v. 
Land,  &c.,  Imp.  Co.,  12  Wash. 
272  96 

Washington   Mill   Co.   v.    Craig, 

7    Wash.    556  "      111 

Washington  Rock  Plaster  Co. 
V.     Johnson,     10     Wash.     445 

204,    224 
Wasson  v.  Beauchamp,   11  Ind. 

18  250 

Waterbury  Lumber,   &c.,  Co.  v. 

Coogan,  73  Conn.  519    75,  128,  235 
Waterman    v.    Stout,     38     Neb. 

396  26,    140 

Waters  v.  Goldberg,  124  App. 
Div.    511  100,    101,    119 

V.    Johnson    (Mich.),     96     N. 

T\^    504  90,    106 

V.    Wolf,     2    Pa.    Super.    Ct. 

200  57 

T\"atkins  v.   Bugge,   56  Neb.   615 

86,  111 
V.  Shaw,  4  C.  C.  D.  660  235,  242 
V.    Spoull,    8    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

427  224 

v.    T\^assell,    20    Ark.    410  275 

Watrous  v.  Davies,  35  111.  App. 
542  126 

V.      Elmendorf,       55        How. 
Prac.     (N.    Y.)    461 

21,    53,    239,    244 
Watson    V.    Cone,    66    Hun    632         65 
V.  Gardner,  119  111.  312        11,  141 
V.  Markham  (Tex.),  77  S.  'W. 

660  163 

V.  Noonday  Min.  Co.,  37  Ore. 

287  103,    235,    286 

V.  Woods,   3   R.   I.   226  26 

Watts   V.    Eckels,    26    Pa.    C.    C. 

439  231 

V.    Metcalf,    23    Ky.    L.    2189        54 

V.   Whittlngton,   48   Md.   353        98 

Watts-Campbell   Co.   v.   Yueng- 

ling,    125    N.    Y.    1  14,    96 

Waymard     v.    Mining      Co.,      30 

Pittsb.   Leg.   J.    (N.    S.)    96  122 

T\'eatherlv    v.    Van    Wyck,    128 

Cal.    329  18 

Weathersby      v.      Sinclair,      43 

Miss.   189  30,    250 

Weaver  v.  Atlantic  Roofing 
Co.,    57    N.    J.    Eq.    547  55,    56 

V.    Demuth,    40    N.    J.    Law 

238  179 

V.    Sells,    10    Kan.    609  6,    21 

V.   Sheeler,   118  Pa.  634      139,   260 
V.    Sheeler,    124    Pa.    473,    17 

Atl.    17  26,    27 

Webb   V.    Koaer,    78    Tex.    1  243 

V.    Kuns    (Cal.),    54    P.    78  241 

V.      Van      Zandt,       16      Abb. 

Prac.    314  246,    263 

T\^ebbe  v.   Curran,   198   111.   18  34 

Weber  v.  Bushnell,   171  111.   587 

96,   167,   178,  286 
V.    Hearn,    49    App.    Div.    213 

207,   208 
v.    Weatherby,    34    Md.    656        36 
'^''ebster    v.    Real    Estate    Imp. 
Co.,    140    Mass.    526  17 

V.    Tattershall    (Ky.),    36    S. 

W.    1126  33 

Wedut   V.   Vogel,   84  Wis.    462  49 


TABLE  OF  CASES, 


Ixxi 


[References  are  to  Sections. 1 


174 


212 
19 


Weeks  v.  Walcott,  81  Mass.   54 

58,    86.   214 
Wees   V.   Elbon,   61  W.   Va.    380 

71,  257 
Wehr  V.  Shryock,  55  Md.  334  252 
Weinberg   v.   Valente,  79   Conn. 

247 
Weiner    v.    Rumble,     11     Colo. 

607 
Weir  V.   Barnes,   38    Neb.    875 
Welsemair   v.    Buffalo,    57    Hun 

48  65 

Weithoff  V.  Murray,  76  Cal.  508     94 
Welch  V.  McGrath,  59  Iowa  519 

107,  227 
V.   New  York,    19   Abb.   Prac. 

(N.  Y.)    132  131 

V.    Porter,    63    Ala.    225  158 

V.    Sherer,    93    111.    64  57,    65 

Welde    V.    Henderson,    53    Hun 

633  6,   272 

Weldon     v.     Gibbon,     2     Phila. 
176  164 

V.    Superior    Court,    138    Cal. 

427  66 

Weller    v.    McNabb,     36     Tenn. 

422  187 

Wells'   Estate  In   re,   2  Del.   Co. 
(Pa.)    172 

IDS,    121,    123,    134,    166,    211 
Wells  V.   Cahn,    51   Cal.    423  67 

Wells  V.   Canton  Co.,   3  Md.   234 

129,  151 
V.    Christian,    165   Ind.    662  45 

V.    David    City    Imp.     Assn., 

43    Neb.   366  99 

V.   Sherin,   92   111.   App.   282  26 

Wentworth   v.   Tubbs,   53   Minn. 

o  Q  o  1  9  Q 

Wentzell  v.    Sanford,    112   N.   C. 

660  297 

Wera   v.    Bowerman,    191    Mass. 

458  16 

Werner  Saw-Mill  Co.  v.  Chemi- 
cal   Co.,    33    Pitts.    193  102 
Wescott    V.    Bridwell,     40     Mo. 
146  209 
V.    Bunker,    83    Me.    499 

109,    116,    115,    196 
West    V.     Badger    Lumber    Co., 
56    Kan.   287  208,    299 

V.   Fleming,   18   111.    248      198,   199 
V.  Granger   (Fla.),   35   So.   91 

236,  250 
V.  Klotz,  37  Ohio  St.  420  18,  147 
V.   Pullen,    88   111.   App.   620  25 

V.    Reeves,    53   Neb.    472  163 

West  Coast  Lumber  Co.  v.  Ap- 
fleld,    86   Cal.    335  42 

V.    Knapp,    122    Cal.   79   55,   57,   79 
V.    Newkirk,     80    Cal.     275 

36,   106,   243 
West   Chester   v.    Sahler,    8    Pa. 

Co.  Ct.   R.    656  102 

Western     Brass     Mfg.     Co.     v. 
Boyce,   74    Mo.   App.   343      177,   228 
v.  Mepham,   64  Mo.  App.   50      122 
Western    Cornice,    &c.,    Co.     v. 
Leavenworth,    52    Neb.    418 

103,   105 
Western    Iron    Works    v.    Mon- 
tana   Pulp,    &c.,    Co.    (Mont.) 
77    Pac.    413 

101,    103,    121,    158,    261,    267 


We.stern      Sash,      &c.,      Co.      v. 
Buckner,    80    Mo.    App.    95 

48,    53,    58 
V.    Heiman     (Kan.),      68     P. 

1080  220,  231 

Westfield    v.    Mayo,    122    Mass. 

100  185 

Westhus    V.     Springmeyer,      52 

Mo.    220  251 

Westland  v.  Goodman,  47  Conn. 

83  114 

Weston    V.     Dunlap,     50     Iowa 
183  187 

V.   Weston,   46   Wis.   130  224 

West  Philadelphia  Brick  Co.  v. 

Johnson,  3  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  220    135 
West     Virginia     Bldg.      Co.      v. 

Saucer,    45   W.   Va.    483  205 

TV^etenkamp    v.    Billigh,    27    111. 

App.  585  77 

Wethered    v.    Garrett,    140    Pa. 
224  211 

v.     Garrett,     7     Pa.     Co.     Ct. 
529  105 

Wetherill    v.     Harbert,     2     Pa. 
348  189 

V.    Ohlendorf,     61    111.    283  22 

Vv^etmore    v.    Marsh,     81     Iowa 

677  25,    108,    164 

Wetmore's  Appeal,  91  Pa.  276  109 
Weyer  v.  Beach,  79  N.  Y.  409  284 
Weyerhaeuser      v.      Fraim,      54 

Kan.    645  99 

Whalen    v.    Collins,    164    Mass. 

146  134 

Wharton  v.  Douglas,  92  Pa.  66    105 
V.   Real-Estate  Inv.   Co.,   180 
Pa.    St.    168  109,    116 

Wheaton     v.    Berg,      50      Minn. 
525  7,    42,    230 

v.   Trimble,    145   Mass.   345  31 

Wheeler    v.    Almond,    46    N.    J. 
Law    161  220 

V.    Hall,    41    Wis.    447  26 

V.    Monett   Mill   Co.,    73    Mo. 
App.   672  250 

V.    Pierce,    167    Pa.    416  12,    56 

V.    Port    Blakely    Mill    Co.,    2 

Wash.     T.     71  115 

V.    Ralph,     4    Wash.    617 

85,   122,  204,   262 
V.    Schroeder,    4    R.     I.     383 

1  7  fi      9 1  S 

V.   Scofield,    67   N.   Y.    311         '      65 
Wheelock    v.    Harding,     4     Pa. 
Super.    Ct.    21  158 

v.    Hull,    124    Iowa   752 

56,  120,  175,  229,  252 
Wheelright     v.     St.    Louis,    &c., 
Transp.    Co.,    47   La.   Ann.    533 

41,    100 
Whelan  v.  Young,  21  D.  C.  51  67 

Whipple   V.   Christian,   80   N.   Y. 

523  74,    86 

Whisten    v.    Kellogg,    50    Misc. 

Rep.    409  224 

Whitcomb    v.    Eustace,     6      111. 

App.    574  189 

Whitcombe     v.     Roll,     40     Ind. 

App.    119  82,    95 

Whitaker    v.     Smith,     81    N.    C. 

340  16 

White   v.   Chaffln,   32  Ark.   59   8,     11 

12,    129,    130,    134,    150,    151,   225 


Ixxx 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  Sections.] 


■U'hite  V.   Dumpke,    45  Wis.   455   117 
V.     Fresno     Nat.     Bank,     98 

Cal.   166 
V.   Livingston,   174   N.  Y.   538 

65,    66,    102,    128 
V.    Livingston,    59   App.    Div. 
361 

65,     66,     100,     108,     115, 
V.    Millbourne,    31   Ark.    486 
V.    Miller,    IS    Pa.    54 
V.    Mullins,    2    Idaho    1164 
V.   Oliver,   36   Me.   92 
V.    Stanton,    111    Ind.    540 

104,    216,    254 
V.   Wasiiington    School   Dist. 
42   Conn.    541 
White's    Appeal,    10    Pa.    252 
White     Lake     Lumber     Co.      v. 

Russell,    22    Neb.    126      8,    21,    104 
Whitenack  v.  Noe,  11  N.  J.  Eq. 
321 

12.     101,     104,     138,     153,     279,     293 
V\^hiteselle      v.       Texas       Loan 
Agency   (Tex.),   27   S.   W.    309 

79,    106 
Whiteside   v.   Lebcher,    7    Mont. 
473  56,  104 

V.  School  Dist.,  20  Mont.  44        10 
Wliitford    V.    Newell,    84    Mass. 

424  13,    33,    74,    122 

Whiting    V.    Koepke,    71    Conn. 


296 


126 
212 

54 
106 

49 


74 
211 


V.  Story  County,  54  Iowa  81 
Whitla    V.    Taylor,    6    La.    Ann. 

480 
Whitlow    V.    Champlln,    52    III. 

App.    644 
Whitman   v.   Wilkes-Barre  De- 
posit,  &c.,  Bank,   9  Kulp,   512 
112, 
V.     Dart, 


251 
10 


177 

74 


Whitmeyer 

A.pp.    565 
Whitney    v 

238 
V.    Higgins,    10    Cal 


Colman, 


29      Mo. 
9      Daly 


229 

182 
547 
228,    276,    282 
V.    Joslin,    108    Mass.    103  175 

T\^hittenton      Mills,      79      Mass. 

100  109 

Whittier    v.     Blakelv,     13    Ore. 
546  64,    76,    115,    181 

V.    Hollister,    64    Calif.    283      127 
V.    Puget    Sound    Loan,    &c., 

Co.,    4    ■V\^ash.    St.    666 

V.    Stetson,    &c..    Mill    Co.,    6 

"W^ash.    190  103, 

V.    T^^ilbur,    48    Cal.    175      57, 

Wick   V.    Ft.    Plain    &   R.    S.   Ry. 

Co.,    27    App.    Div.    577 
Wickham    v.    Monroe,    89    Iowa 

666  77,     90,     127 

Wieske   v.    Imroth,    43   IlL   App. 

357 
\\"iggins   V.   Bridge,   70   Cal.   437 
Wightman   v.  Brenner,   26  N.  J. 

Eq.    489 
■\\^igton's  Appeal,   28  Pa.   161 
Wilcox  v.    Keith,    3   Ore.    372 

v.    Woodruff,    61    Conn.    578 
"U^'ilder    v.    French,    9    Gray    393 

32,    255 
V.   Walker,    98    Ga.    508      229,   243 
"^''iles    V.    People's    Gas    Co.,    7 
Pa.  Super.   Ct.   562  141 


22 


123 

195 


284 


68 
65 

209 
186 
240 
135 


Wiley    V.    Connelly,    179    Mass. 

360  167 

Wilkerson   v.  Rust,   57   Ind.   172 

24,  143 
"Wilkie  V.  Brey,  71  N.  C.  205  32 
Wilkins    v.    Litchfield,    69   Iowa 

465  27,    143 

T\^ilkinson       v.       Hoffman,       61 

Wis.    637  10 

Willamette,  Etc.,  Co.  v.  Perrin, 
1   Ore.   182  213 

V.    Remick,    1    Ore.    169 

13,    16 
V.    Riley,    1    Ore.    183 

6,    126,    144,    246,    236 
Willamette     Steam     Mill,     Etc., 
Co.  V.  Kremer,   86  Cal.  191  104 

V.    Kremer,     94    Cal.    205 

99,    104,    237,    247 
V.   Los   Angeles   College   Co., 

94    Cal.    229  34,    95,    204 

V.  McLeod,   27   Ore.   272      107,  112 
V.    Shea,    24    Ore.    40  85 

'U'illard    v.    Magoon,    30    Mich. 

273  238,  252,  298 

Willauer's     Estate     In     re.,     1 

Chest.    Co.    (Pa.)    533  186 

Wilier   v.    Bergenthal,    50    Wis. 

474  47,   249,   266 

Willetts    V.    Earl,    53    N.    J.    D. 

270  55 

Wiiley    V.     St.     Charles     Hotel 
Co.,   52  La.  Ann.   1581      3,   182,   195 
v.    Topping,    146    Pa.   427  54 

Williams  v.  Bankhead,  19  Wall. 
L'.   S.   563  222 

V.     Bower,     11     Pa.     Co.     Ct. 

151  14 

V.    Bradford    (N.   J.),    21   Atl. 

331  20.    75,    77,    123 

V.     Chapman,     17     111.     423 

129  228 
V.  Controllers,  18  Pa.  275  '  10 
V.    Deutscher    Verein,    14    N. 

Y.    Supp.    368  223 

Williams  v.  Daiker,  71  N.  Y.  S. 
247  121 

V.  Daiker,  33  Misc.   Rep.   70     122 
Williams     v.      Edison      Electric 
Illuminating     Co.,     16     N.     Y. 
Supp.     857  224,     230 

V.    Gaston.    127    Cal.    641  299 

V.   Judd-Wells   Co.,    91   Iowa 

378  85,    136 

V.    Porter,    51    Mo.   441 

104,    237,    267,    286 
V.    Lane,    87    Wis.    152 

12,    140,    258 
V.    Miller,    2    Ohio    Dec.    119 

8,  81,  112,  130 
V.  Rittenhouse,  198  111.  602  34 
V.  Rovvell,  145  Calif.  259  13,  15 
V.    Santa    Clara   Min.    Co.,    66 

Cal.    193  42 

v.    Stroub,    168    Mo.    346  119 

v.    Uncompahgre    Canal    Co., 

13    Colo.    469  30,    35 

V.    Vanderbilt,     145     111.     238 

141,  143 
v.    Vanderbilt,    40    111.    App. 

298  262 

v.   Webb,    13    Dec.    (Re.)    264 

25,  50.  81.  120 
v.  Weinbaum,  178  Mass.   238     48 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Ixxxi 


[References  are 

Williamson  v.  New  Jersey,  &c., 
R.   Co.,  28  N.  J.  Eq.  277  114 

V.    Shank,    41    Ind.    App.    512 

8,    45,    139,    141,    239 
V.    Smith     (Tex.),    79    S.    W. 

^  51  268 

V.    Tunis,    19    Pa.    Super.    Ct. 

207  57 

Willim  V.   Bernheimer,   5   Minn. 

288  6,    86 

Willison    V.    Douglass,    66    Md. 

99  179 

Willverding      v.      Offlneer,      87 

Iowa    475  35,    292 

Wilson    V.    Davidson    County,    3 

Tenn.    Ch.    536  170 

V.    Porder,    30    Pa.    129  98 

V.   Hind,    113    Cal.    357  47,    255 

V.    Hopkins,    51    Ind.    231 

80,    82,     86,    148a 
V.     Hunting-don      County,      7 

Watts  &  S.   (Pa.)   197         10 
V.   Logue,    131   Ind.    191 

26,  76,  86,   102 
V.   Lubke,    176   Mo.    210  164 

V.   Merryman,    48   Md.    328 

231,    234,    258 
V.    Niagara    City    Land    Co., 

79  Hun   162  204 

V.    Nugent,    124    Cal.    633  195 

V.    Nugent,    125    Cal.    280 

17,    100,   271,   272 
V.    Reuter,    29   Iowa    176  277 

V.   Rudd,    70   Wis.    98  188 

V.   Schuck,    5    111.   App.    572  31 

V.    Sleeper,    131    Mass.    177  55 

V.    Smith,   2   Leg.   Rec.    (Pa.) 

368  31 

V.  Wilson,  51  Md.  160  185,  257 
Wilt  V.  Rush,  1  W.  N.  C.  103  246 
Wiltsie    V.    Harvev,    114    Mich. 

131  74,    200,    211 

Wimberly      v.      Mayberry,      94 

Ala.    240  153,    162,    155,    212 

Winder    v.    Caldwell,    55    U.    S. 

■134  48,    210,    234 

Windfall  v.  Rowe   (Ind.),  84  N. 

E.    996  82 

Winfleld  v.  Paulus,  &c.,  Co.,  77 

Mo.  App.   370  170,    169 

"Wing   V.    Carr,   86   111.    347      146,    163 
Wingert   v.   Stone,   142   Pa.    258      187 
Windham  v.  Independent  Tele- 
phone  Co.,    35   Wash.    166  49 
Winkle  Terra  Cotta  Co.  v.  Ga- 
lena,   &c..    Trust    Co.,    64    111. 
App.    184                                       32,    241 
Winn  V.  Henderson,  63   Ga.  365 
„..                                                        201,   279 
Winslow      Bros.      Co.      v.      Mc- 
Cully    Stone    Mason    Co.,    169 
Mo.    236                                                  261 
Winter    v.    Hudson,     54       Iowa 

336  68 

Wisconsin,     &c..     Brick    Co.    v. 
Hood,    67    Minn.    329  49 

V.  St.   Peter  St.  Imp.   Co.,   46 

Minn.    231  255 

Wisconsin    Planing   Mill    Co.    v. 

Schuda,   72   Wis.   277  160 

Wisconsin   Trust   Co.  v.   Robin- 
son  &   Cary   Co.,   68   Fed.    778 
„..  155,    177 

Wismer's    Estate    In    re,    2    Pa. 
Co.    Ct.    387  134 


to  Sections.] 

Withrow    Lumber   Co.    v.   Glas- 
gow   Inv.    Co.,    101    Fed.    863 
Txrt,..  80,    108, 

Whitman    v.    Walker,    9    Watts 

&  S.   (Pa.)   183 
Witte  V.  Meyer,   11  Wis.   295 
Wolf   V.  Batchelder,    56   Pa.    87 
V.     Glassport     Lumber     Co., 

210    Pa.     370 
V.     Mendelsohn,     87      N      Y 
S.    465  67, 

V.     Michaelis,     27     111.     App. 
336 
Wolfe    V.    Keeley,    9    Pa.    Dist 
515  109, 

V.    Oxnard,    152    Pa.    623 
Wollreich  v.  Fettretch,  51  Hun 

640 
Women's    Homeopathic     Ass'n. 
V.    Harrison,    120    Pa.    28        14 
Wood's    Appeal,    30    Pa.    274 
Wood    V.    Atlantic    &    N.    C.    R 
Co.,    131    N.   C.    48  66, 

V.   Donaldson,   17   Wend.    (N. 
Y.)    550  58 

V.     Grifenhagen,      37      Misc. 

553 
V.    Gumm,    67    111.    App.    518 
V.     Haney     (Tenn.),      41      S. 

W.    1072 
V.     King,     57    Ark.     284 

243,    244, 

V.   Morehouse,   45  N.   Y.   375 

Wood   V.   Oakland,  &c..  Transit 

Co.,     107    Cal.     500  128. 

V.   St.   Paul   City   Ry.   Co.,   42 

Minn.    411 
V.    Simons,    110    Mass.    116 
V.   Stringer,   20   Ont.    R.    148 
V.     Wilmington     Conference 
Academy,         1         Marv. 
(Del.)    416 
V.     Wilmington     Conference 
Academy,       5        Houst. 
513 
Woodard   v.    American    Exposi- 
tion Ry.  Co.,   39  La.  Ann.  566 
Woodburn    v.    Gifford,      66     111. 
285  85,   134, 

\V"oodman      v.      Richardson,      1 
Ohio    Cir.    Ct.    191  129, 

Woodruff  V.  Hovey,   91   Me.   116 
Woodward    v.    Leiby,      36      Pa. 

437 
Woodward      v.      McLaren,      100 

Ind.    586 
Wookey    v.    Slemmons,    65    111. 

App.    553 
Woolf  V.  Shaefer,  41  Misc.  Rep. 

640 
Woolsey    v.     Bohn,      41      Minn. 

235 
Wooten   V.   Archer,    49   Ga.    388 
TVorden    v.    Hammond,    37    Cal. 

61 
Work    V.    Hall,   79    111.    196 
Worthen      v.      Cleveland,       129 
Mass.    570  98, 

Worthington       v.        Cambridge 
Springs      Co.,    24    Pa.    Co.    Ct. 
281 
Worthley       v.       Emerson,       116 

Mass.   374 
Wortman    v.    Kleinschmidt,    12 
Mont.    316  4, 


109 

112 

101 

262 

201 

195 

200 

124 
110 

35 

,    97 
153 

268 

,    66 

144 
103 

98 

249 
182 

229 

120 
86 
96 


186 

250 

58 

294 

137 
96 

27 

55 

257 

205 

259 
32 

32 

292 

234 

15 
136 
299 


Ixxxii 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are 

"Wray  v.  Harris,  77  N.  C.  77  116 

Wright    V.    Beardsley,    69    Mo. 

548  104,    105 

V.   Cowie,   5   Wash.  341     138,   225 

V.   Hood,   49   Wis.    235  261 

V.    Meyer    (Tex.),    25    S.    W. 

1122  25 

V.    Pohls,    83    Wis.    560  128 

V.   Reusens,    60   Hun    585  49 

V.     Roberts,     55     Hun     610 

64,   131,    220 
V.  Schoharie  Valley  Ry.  Co., 

116    App.    Div.    542  64 

V.   Vaug-han    (Va.),    33    S.    E. 

595  156 

Wrigley    v.     Mahaffey,      5     Pa. 

Dist.    389  129.   293 

Wroten     v.      Armat      (Va.),      31 

Grat.    228  162 

Wrought-Iron  Bridge  Co.  v. 
York  Mfg.  Co.,  11  York  Leg. 
Rec.    45  123,    255 

Wyman   v.   Quayle,   9   Wyo.    335 

106,    251,    284 
Wynn     v.     South     River    Brick 
Co.,    99    Ga.    126  252 

T 
Yancy    v.    Morton,    94    Cal.    558 

34,   240 
Yarborough     v.     Lumpkin,      52 

Ga.    280  293 

Yates  V.  Meadville,  56  Pa.  St.  21     9 
Yaukey    v.    Buckman,     18     Pa. 

Super.   Ct.   378  257 

Yearsley    v.    Flanigen,     22     Pa. 

489  15,    98 

Yellow    Pine    Co.    v.    Board    of 

Education,   15   Misc.  Rep.   58       74 

Yohe's   Appeal.    55   Pa.    121  264 

York      V.    Barstow,    175      Mass. 

167  103 

V.  Mathis,   103   Me.    67  35 


to  Sections.] 

Yostes    V.    Wheadon,     6     Bush. 

(Ky.)    439  32 

Young  V.   Berger,   132  Ind.  530     270 
V.    Borzone,    26    Wash.    23 

76,  205,  299 
V.  Burtman,  1  Phila.  203  207 
V.    Elliott,    2    Phila.    352  114 

V.  Falmouth,  183  Mass.  80  270 
V.  Haight,  69  N.  J.  L.  453  160 
V.    Howell,    5    ^Wash.    239  103 

V.    Lyman,    9    Pa.    449  49,    116 

V.   Pulte,    1    W.    N.    C.    38  246 

V.    St.    James'      Church,      61 

Barb.    489  66 

V.  Stoutz,  74  Ala.  574  154 

V.    West    Side    Hotel    Co.,    9 
Ohio     Cir.     Ct.     R.     127 

44,   153 
V.  Wilson,  44  N.  J.  Law  157 

27,    55 
Youngblood     v.    McAnally,      88 
Ala.   512  29 


Zabriskie  v.  Greater  American 
Exposition  Co.  (Neb.),  93  N. 
W.    958  11 

Zachary  v.  Perry,   130  N.  C.  289   167 

Zarrs   v.    Keck,   40   Neb.   456 

49,   58,    297 

Zehner  v.  Johnson,  22  Ind. 
App.   452  82,   148a,   156 

Zeigler  v.  Leibolt,  1  Dec.  Re. 
404  156 

Ziegler  v.  Galvin,  45  Hun  (N. 
Y.)    44  11,   32 

Zollars  V.  Snyder  (Tex.),  94  S. 
W.    1096  127 

Zuttermeister  v.  Central  Lum- 
ber   Co.,    104    111.    App.    120  34 


A  TREATISE 

ON  THE 

LAW  OF  MECHANICS'  LIENS 


CHAPTER  L 

ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL  PRINCirLES. 

Sec.  Sec. 

1.  Origin.  7.  Retroactive    effect. 

2.  Nature    and    definition.  8.  Construction    of    law. 

3.  Law  of  place   where  building         9.  To    whom    right    granted    tO/ 
located,  controls.  secure  lien.                               / 

4.  Constitutionality.  10.  Property    that    may    be    sub- 

5.  Enactment  of  laws.  ject   to    lien. 

6.  Operation       of       repeal  or       11.  Quantity    of    interest    or    es- 
change  of  law.  tate  subject  to  lien. 

§  1.  Origin. — In  1791  Thomas  Jefferson,  James  Madison 
and  others  addressed  the  legislature  of  Maryland  as  follows, 
"Your  memorialists  conceive  it  would  encourage  master  build- 
ers to  contract  for  erection  and  furnishing  of  houses  for  certain 
prices  agreed  upon,  if  a  lien  was  created  by  law  for  their  just 
claim  on  the  house  erected  and  the  lot  of  land  on  which  it 
stood. "^  /In  response  to  this  petition  the  General  Assembly 
of  Maryland  on  December  19,  1791,  passed  an  act  creating  such 
liens.2  This  was  the  beginning  of  this  branch  of  law  in  nations 
where  the  common  law  prevails.  While  the  idea  of  the  lien  is 
somewhat  similar  to  the  lien  given  by  the  common  law  on  per- 
sonal property,  a  lien  on  real  estate  was  entirely  unknown  to 
the  common   law.^     The   civil   law  recognized  the  justice  of 

1  Proceedings  of  Commission-  3  Ex  Parte  Schmidt  v.  Smith, 
ers  from  1791  to  1795,  p.  28.  62    Ala.    252;    Anderson    v.    Sea- 

2  Act  General  Assembly  Mary-  mans,  49  Ark.  475,  5  S.  W.  799; 
land,  ch.  45,  Dec.  18,  1791.  Gove     v.     Gather,     23     111.     585; 

1 


§1] 


ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES. 


such  a  lien  and  made  some  provisions  for  it.^  Pennsylvania 
was  the  second  state  to  adopt  a  law  recognizing  the  lien.^ 
Other  states  followed,  until  at  this  time  every  state  of  the 
union  as  well  as  the  Canadian  provinces  has  a  statute 
creating  and  enforcing  liens  of  this  character.^     Neither  Mex- 


Sweet  &  Carpenter  v.  James,  2 
R.  I.  270;  Cole  v.  Hall,  12  Ont. 
Pr.  Rep.  584. 

4  Domat's  Civil  Law  Sec.  1741; 
Code  Napoleon,  p.  571.  The 
state  of  Louisiana  has  substan- 
tially followed  this  code.  C.  C. 
3217,   3272. 

5  Laws  Penn.,  Act  April  1, 
1803. 

6  Alabama — Code  sec.  2723  et. 
seq. 

Alaska Civil    Code,    sees.    262 

to   275. 

Arizona. — Rev.  St.,  ch.  2,  tit. 
40,  1901  par  1888  to  2914. 

Arkansas — Kirby's  Dig.  1904, 
p.    1068. 

California. — Code  Civil  Proc. 
sec.  1183-1203,  Deering's  Ed. 
1903. 

Colorado. — Mills  Ann.  St.  sec. 
2S67,   3   Sup.  Vol. 

Connecticut. — Gen.  St.  sec. 
4135-4148. 

Delaware. — Rev.  Code,  p.  818, 
1893. 

District  of  Columbia. — Code 
Dist.   Col.   sec.   1237  to  1264. 

Illinois.— Kurd's  Rev.  St.  1908, 
ch.  82,  §  15  et  seq. 

Indiana,— Burns'  Rev.  St.  1908, 
§§    8295    et   seq. 

Louisiana — Act  180,  1894,  Act. 
123,   1896. 

Maine Rev.    St.,   Ch.   93,   1903. 

Maryland. — Act  63  sec.  1,  Code 
1888.  Act.  1898,  ch.  502,  Act. 
1902,    ch.    432-502. 


Massacliusetts. — Rev.      St.      p. 

1700-1706,   Laws   1902. 

Michigan. — Comp.  Laws  1897, 
Vol.  3,  sec.  10710-10742. 

Minnesota. — Gen.  St.  ch.  90, 
sec.  6229,  et.  seq.  1894. 

Mississippi. — Ann.  Code,  sec. 
2698-2715,    1892. 

Missouri Rev.    St.,    sec.    4203- 

4227,    1899. 

Montana,— Code  Civ.  Proc. 
sec.  2130-2141,  1895. 

Nebraska. — Cobbey's  Ann.  St. 
col.  2  p.  2178.     Com.  St.  Chap.  54. 

Nevada. — Comp.  Laws  —  Cut- 
tings Ed.  Sec.  3881.  Amended 
Sess.  Laws,  p.  51,  1903. 

New  Hampshire. — Pub.  St.,  p. 
388,  389,  1891.  Chase's  Edition 
1900,   p.   452. 

Xew  Jersey — Act  of  1898,  p. 
457. 

New  ■  Mexico. — Comp.  Laws, 
sec.   2217-2233,  1897. 

New  York — Laws  1897,  ch. 
418;  Cummings  &  Gilbert  Gen. 
Laws,  p.  2142. 

North  Carolina. — Code  Vol.  1, 
ch.  41,  Act  1901,  ch.  617.  Rev. 
Code,   sec.   2016-2057,   1905. 

North  Dakota. — Rev.  Code,  sec. 
4788-4801,    1899. 

Oiiio. — 97  Ohio  Laws,  p.  499, 
1904. 

Oklahoma  Territiory.  —  Civ. 

Code,  sec.  4527-4542;  Wilson's 
Stat.  1883,  St.  p.  870. 

Oregon. — Ballinger  &  Cotton's 
Ann.     Code,  sec.  5640-5667. 


NATURE   AND   DEFINITION. 


[§2 


ico'  nor  Great  Britain^  have  such  lawsA  Some  states  recognize 
thjgjaght  to  the  Hen  by  constitutional  provisiortvf 

2.  Nature  and  definition. — While  the  lien  is  created  by 
statute  it  has  become  so  fixed  in  our  jurisprudence  as  to  have 
a  nomenclature  of  its  own  and  the  term^Meghanics'  Liem 
may  be  said  to  be  a  generic  name  for  all  liens  on  reaT^stSife  in 
favor  of  persons  furnishing  labor  or  materials  in  or  for  the  erec- 
tion of  buildings  or  making  improvements  on  real  estate.  It 
rests  entirely  upon  the  statute  of  the  state'^in  which  the  real 
estate  is  located  and  such  statute  will  govern  and  control  what 
may  be  included  in  its  terms. ^  The  liejijtpelf  may  be  defined 
to  be  a  riglit_granted  by  statutory  enactment  to  persons  fur-  „ 


PennsylTania. — Laws    1891,    -p. 

431;    Laws   1905,   p.   173. 

Rliode  Islaud. — Gen.  Laws,  ch. 
206,   p.    673,   1896. 

South  Carolina. — Code  Laws 
sec.   3008-3047. 

Sonth  Dakota. — Rev.  Code, 
sec.   695-712,  1893. 

Tennessee. — State  Code,  Shan- 
non's  Ed.   sec.   3531-3546. 

Texas — Rev.  St.  art.  3294-3297, 
1895. 

Utah — Rev.  St.  sec.  1372-1400, 
1898,  ch.  58;   Laws  1899. 

Vermont. — Vermont  St.  1894, 
sec.    2273-2281. 

Virginia. — Code  (Pollard  Ed.) 
sec.   2475  et  seq. 

Washington. — Ballinger's  Code 
sec.  5900-5918;  Pierce's  Code, 
sec.    6102-6120. 

West  Virginia. — Code,  Warth, 
4   Ed.   p.   699. 

Wisconsin. — Rev.  St.,  ch.  143, 
sec.    3314    et.    seq. 

Wyoming.— Rev.  St.,  sec.  2889- 
2910,  1899. 

British  Colnmhia. — Mechanic's 
Lien  act,  1891. 


Manitoba,— Rev.  St.,  ch.  110, 
1902. 

New  Brunswick. — Consol.  St., 
Vol.   2,   p.   1745. 

Newfoundland. — Consol.  St. 

(Second    Series)    1900,   ch.    188. 

JVoya  Scotia. — Rev.  St.,  Vol.  1, 
p.  171,  ch.  27;  Acts,  1902,  ch.  25; 
Acts  1903-4,  ch.  31,  Acts,  1905. 

Ontario.— Rev.  St.,  Vol.  1,  cap. 
153,  pp.  1516-1538;  Ont.  St.,  62, 
Vic.  cap.  2,  schedule  3;  Ont. 
Stat.  2,  Ed.  VII.  cap.  21,  sec.  1. 

Quebec. — Civ.  Code  Prov.  Que- 
bec, art.  2013-2013-1;  4  Edw.  VII 
ch.    43,    sec.    1. 

7  Macondray  v.  Simmons,  1. 
Cal.   393. 

8  Shaw  V.  Young,  87  Me.  274, 
32  Atl.  897. 

9  Powers  Lumber  Co.  v.  Wad^, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.  ).  39  S.  W.  158. 
Blakeney  v.  Nally  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  101  S.  W.  875. 

1  Plorman  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
11,  6  Colo.  App.  319,  40  Pac.  469; 
United  States  Blowpipe  Co.  v. 
Spencer,  40  W.  Va.  698,  21  S.  E. 
769;   Bonner  v.  Minnier,  13  Mont. 


§  3]  ORIGIN   AND  GENERAL   PRINCIPLES.  4 

nishing  labor  or  materials  for  the  erection  of  buildings  or  mak- 
ing improvements  on  real  estate  to  have  such  real  estate  and 
the  buildings  thereon  sold  and  the  proceeds  applied  in  payment 
for  such  labor  or  materials.^  It  is  not  a  general  lien.  It  has 
a  nature  peculiar  to  itself  of  an  equitable  character,^  and  is 
said  to  rest  upon  the  broad  ground  of  natural  equity  and  com- 
mercial necessity.^  While  it  may  rest  largely  upon  an  equitable 
basis,^  yet  without  a  statute  the  broad  principles  of  equity 
would  not  reach  it.*^  However,  some  few  courts  have  held  that 
a  lien  of  this  character  might  be  reserved  as  between  the 
parties.'^  Originally  the  statutes  were  limited  to  particular 
kinds  of  labor  but  imperceptibly  the  extent  of  the  lien  has  been 
enlarged  until  at  present  it  has  been  brought  to  include  labor 
and  services  of  various  kinds  and  secures  the  pay  of  the  me- 
chanic, material  man  or  contractor  for  any  and  all  labor 
or  services  rendered  in  the  betterment  of  the  property;^  and  the 
construction  placed  upon  these  statutes  has  been  broadened 
so  as  to  carry  into  force  their  intended  purpose.^ 

§  3.     Law  of  place  where  building  located  controls. — The 

object  of  the  lien  being  to  subject  real  estate  to  its  satisfaction, 

269,  34   Pac.   30,  40  Am.   St.   441;  6  Ellison  v.  Jackson  Water  Co., 

Volker-Scowcroft   Lumber   Co.    v.  12  Cal.   542;    Emerson  v.   Gainey, 

Vance,    32   Utah   74,   88   Pac.   896.  26  Fla.   133,   7    So.   526;    Slack  v. 

See  Dec.  Dig  tit  Mechanics'  Liens,  Collins,    145    Ind.    569,    42    N.    E. 

§  1.  910;    Miller   v.    Hollingsworth,   33 

2  Van  Stone  v.  Stillwell  &  Iowa,  224;  Withrow  Lumber  Co. 
Bierce  Mfg.  Co.,  142  U.  S.  128,  v.  Glasgow  Inv.  Co.,  101  Fed. 
35  L.  ed.  961,  12  Sup.  Ct.  181;  863,  42  C.  C.  A.  61.  I  Pom.  Eq. 
Thompson    v.    Baxter,    92    Tenn.  sec.    167. 

305,  21  S.  W.  668,  36  Am.  St.  85;  7  Smith  v.  Kennedy,  89  111.  485; 

Frost  V.  Ilsley,  54  Me.  345.  Taylor    v.     Huck,    65     Tex.    238; 

3  Mochon  V.  Sullivan,  1  Mont.  Martin  v.  Roberts,  57  Tex.  564; 
470.  Gaylard  v.  Loughridge,  50  Tex.  573. 

4  Mochon  V.  Sullivan,  1  Mont.  s  Church  v.  Smithea,  4  Colo. 
470.  App.  175,  35  Pac.  268;    Collins  v. 

5  Goodman     v.     Baerlocher,     88  Mott,  45  Mo.   100. 

Wis.    287,    60   N.   W.    415,   43   Am.  9  Durling  v.  Gould,  83  Me.  134, 

St.  893.  21   Atl.   833. 


CONSTITUTIONALITY. 


[§4 


the  law  of  the  territory  or  state  where  such  real  estate  is  lo- 
cated necessarily  controls  in  determining  the  question  as  to 
the  existence  of  the  lien.^  In  other  words  such  laws  have  no 
extraterritorial  effect  and  if  the  material  for  a  building  were 
delivered  to  the  owner  of  the  land  in  a  state  other  than  that 
in  which  the  building  is  located,  there  would  be  no  lien.^  If 
land  has  been  ceded  to  the  United  States  merely  for  govern- 
mental uses  the  laws  of  the  state,  however,  would  control.^  But 
if  a  territory  is  carved  out  of  a  state  and  no  provision  is  made 
stipulating  that  the  laws  of  the  state  in  relation  to  mechanics' 
liens  shall  remain  in  force,  no  lien  can  be  acquired  upon  prop- 
erty in  the  territory.^  Formerly  the  laws  applied  to  particu- 
lar portions  of  the  state  and  in  that  case  it  could  not  be  applied 
to  another  portion  f  and  upon  this  question  the  statute  was 
strictly  construed.^  , 

§  4.  Constitutionality. — At  first  various  objections  were 
made  to  these  statutes  upon  the  claim  that  they  infringed  some 
constitutional  provision  but  it  is  now  generally  conceded  that 
no  such  valid  objection  can  be  made  to  these  law?.^  They  are 
not  class  legislation.^  And  even  where  the  law  made  the  lien 
prior  to  existing  mortgages,  it  was  upheld  as  not  being 
unconstitutional  because  of  taking  property  without  due  pro- 


1  See  Dec.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics' 
Liens,  sec.  2.  Birmingham  v. 
Glen  Cove,  78  N.  Y.  30. 

2  Willey  V.  St.  Charles  Hotel 
Co.,  52  La.  Ann.  1581,  28  So.  182. 

3  Crook,  Horner  &  Co.  v.  Old 
Point  Comfort  Hotel  Co.,  54  Fed. 
604. 

4  Townsend  v.  Wild,  1  Colo.  10. 

5  Missouri. — Speilman  v.  Shook, 
11  Mo.  340;  Heamann  v.  Porter, 
35   Mo.   137. 

New  York. — Hickey  v.  Schwab, 
64    How.    Pr.    (N.    Y.)     8;    Cock- 


erill  V.  Loonam,  36  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
353. 

Pennsylyania.  —  Parsons  v. 

Winslow,  1  Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.) 
160;  James  v.  Keller  (Com.  PI.) 
2  Pa.  Dist.  R.  165. 

6  Nunes  V.,  Wellisch,  75  Ky. 
(12  Bush.)    363. 

1  See  Dec.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,  sec.  3.  Palmer  v.  Tingle, 
55  Ohio  St.  432,  45  N.  E.  313. 

2  Summerlin  v.  Thompson,  31 
Fla.  369,  12  So.  667;  Smalley  v. 
Gearing,  121  Mich.  190,  79  N. 
W.    1114. 


§4] 


ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL   PRINCIPLES. 


cess  of  law.2  However,  in  the  latter  instance  the  law  only 
made  the  lien  prior  so  far  as  the  materials  increased  the  value 
of  the  property,  A  requirement  in  the  law  that  it  should  be 
valid  and  binding,  even  if  no  notice  were  given  for  sixty  days, 
was  held  not  to  be  unconstitutional.^  And  the  mere  fact  that 
the  statute  permits  the  owner  to  require  an  indemnity  bond 
from  the  contractor  will  not  affect  its  constitutionality.^ 
Neither  will  a  law  declaring  a  lessor's  interest  subject  to  a  lien 
be  unconstitutional. "^  In  some  states  statutes  have  been  up- 
held which  allowed  an  attorney's  fee.^'^  However,  upon  this 
latter  proposition  in  other  states  there  would  be  a  differ- 
ent conclusion.  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  in  re- 
gard to  the  constitutionality  of  statutes  which  give  a  lien 
without  regard  to  the  indebtedness  existing  between  the 
contractor  and  the  owner.  A  majority  of  the  courts,  how- 
ever, hold  that  such  statutes  are  valid.'^     A  very  respectable 


SHisks  V.  Murray,  43  Cal.  515; 
Warren  v.  Sohn,  112  Ind.  213,  13 
N.  E.  863;  Alvord  v.  Hendrie,  2 
Mont.   115. 

4  Smith  V.  Newbaur,  144  Ind. 
95,  42  N.  E.  40. 

5  Cole  V.  Palls,  90  Tenn.  466, 
16  S.  W.  1045. 

6  Congdon  v.  Cook.  55  Minn.  1, 
56  N.   W.   253. 

6a  Helena,  etc.,  Supply  Co.  v. 
Wells,  16  Mont.  65,  40  Pac.  78. 
See  post,  §300;  Wortman  v.  Klein- 
schmidt,  12  Mont.  316,  30  Pac.  280; 
Griffith  V.  Maxwell,  20  Wash.  403, 
55  Pac.  571. 

7  California, — Hicks  v.  Mur- 
ray, 43  Cal.  515. 

Maine. — At-wood  v.  Williams, 
40  Me.   409. 

Massachusetts.  —  Bowen  v. 

Phinney,  162  Mass.  593,  39  N.  E. 
283;  Donahy  v.  Clapp,  12  Cush. 
(Mass.)    440. 


MIcliigan. — Smalley  v.  Gear- 
ing, 121  Mich.  190,  79  N.  W.  1114. 
See    post.    sec.    45. 

Minnesota. — Laird  v.  Moonan, 
32   Minn.   358,   20  N.   W.   354. 

Missouri. — Henry  v.  Evans,  97 
Mo.  47,  10  S.  W.  868,  3  L.  R.  A. 
332. 

Nebraska. — Ballou  v.  Black,  21 
Neb.  131,  31  N.  W.  673. 

Ohio. — In  re  Mechanic's  Lien 
Land,  7  Ohio  N.  P.  668,  5  Ohio 
Dec.  564;  Pence  v.  Roads,  6  Ohio 
Dec.  90,  4  Ohio  N.  P.  63;  Jenks  v. 
Kress,  7  Ohio  Dec.  109,  4  Ohio  N. 
P.  82. 

Tennessee. — Cole  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Palls,  90  Tenn.  466,  16  S.  W. 
1045. 

Virginia. — Improvement  Co.  v. 
Karn,   80   Va.    589. 

Wisconsin. — Mallory  v.  Abbat- 
toir,   SO  Wis.   170,  49   N.   W.   1071. 

United  States. — Jones  v.  Hotel 
Co.,  86  Fed.  370,  30  C.  C.  A.  108. 


7  ENACTMENT    OF    LAWS.  [§  5 

minority  hold  that  such  laws  are  unconstitutional  f  and  in 
some  instances  the  United  States  Courts  have  declined  to  fol- 
low the  rule  adopted  by  a  state  court  and  have  held  with  the 
prevailing  opinion  that  such  laws  are  constitutional.^  A  law, 
however,  that  provided  that  a  lien  might  attach  where  made 
with  the  reputed  owner  and  not  with  its  actual  owner,  was  held 
void.^*'  So,  an  act  that  made  a  contractor  failing  to  pay  off  a  lien 
when  he  has  received  his  money  liable  to  a  fine  and  imprison- 
ment was  held  void.^^  So  a  statute  providing  that  a  lien 
might  be  enforced  without  actual  or  constructive  notice  to  the 
owner  has  been  held  void.^^  And  part  of  the  law  might  be 
held  constitutional  and  another  part  unconstitutional. ^^  A 
law  giving  a  certain  court  jurisdiction  is  not  for  that  reason 
unconstitutional. !•*  A  statute  allowing  to  a  successful  claim- 
ant the  expense  of  filing  his  lien  has  been  held  not  unconsti- 
tutional.^^ 

§5.  Enactment  of  laws. — Laws  relating  to  liens  are  enacted 
under  the  same  rules  as  other  statutes  and  are  not  repealed  by 
implication.^     But  they  may  be  repealed   by  an   inconsistent 

8  Henry  &  Coatsworth  v.  is  New  England  Engineering 
Evans,  97  Mo.  47,  10  S.  W.  868,  Co.  v.  Oakwood  St.  R.  Co.  (C. 
3  L.  R.  A.  33;  Palmer  v.  Tingle,  C.)  75  Fed.  162;  McCune  v.  Sny- 
55  Ohio  St.  423,  45  N.  E.  113;  der,  8  Ohio  S.  &  C.  P.  Dec.  316. 
Van  Cleve  Glass  Co.  v.  Wamelink,  i4  McNeil  v.  Vorland,  23  Cal. 
6  Ohio  Dec.  521,  4  Ohio  N.  P.  383.  144. 

9  Great  Southern  Fireproof  is  Builders'  Supply  Depot  v. 
Hotel  Co.  V.  Jones,  116  Fed.  793,  O'Connor,  150  Cal.  265,  88  Pac. 
54   C.  C.  A.   165;    Jones  v.   Great  982. 

Southern  Fireproof  Hotel  Co.,  86  i  Alabama, — Birmingham  Build- 
Fed.  370,  30  C.  C.  A.  108.  ing    &    Loan    Ass'n.    v.    May    & 

10  Santa  Cruz  Rock  Pavement  Thomas  Hardware  Co.,  99  Ala. 
Co.  V.  Lyons,  117  Cal.  212,  48  276,  13  So.  612;  Randolph  v. 
Pac.   1097.  Builders'      &      Painters'      Supply 

11  Meyer  v.  Berlandi,   39   Minn.  Co.,  106  Ala.  501,  17  So.   721. 

438,  40  N.  W.  513,  12  Am.  St.  663,  Indiana Beaver   v.    Wilkinson, 

1   L.   R.   A.    777.  9    Ind.    App.    693,    37    N.    E.    188; 

12  Selma  Sash,  Door  &  Blind  Specter  v.  Kimball  &  Cobb 
Factory  v.  Stoddard,  116  Ala.  Stone  Co.,  7  Ind.  App.  157,  34  N. 
251,   23   So.   555.  E.    452;    Taylor   v.    Dahn,    6    Ind. 


6] 


ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL   PRINCIPLES. 


8 


act.2  A  general  law,  however,  will  not  be  presumed  to  repeal 
a  prior  local  law.^  The  law  in  force  at  the  time  the  contract 
is  made  will  control  the  determination  of  the  fact  whether  or 
not  the  lien  exists,  but  the  law  in  force  at  the  time  the  lien  is 
perfected  will  control  the  proceedings  in  perfecting  and  en- 
forcing the  lien.'* 

§  6.  Operation  of  repeal  or  change  of  law. — It  is  a  general 
rule,  that  where  a  statute  is  passed  changing  a  law,  unless  the 
language  is  expressly  to  the  contrary,  it  is  taken  to  mean  to 
apply  to  the  facts  coming  into  existence  after  the  passage  of  the. 
statute.^  It  has  even  been  held  that  if  there  is  no  saving 
clause  in  the  new  act  the  lien  under  the  old  one  becomes  in- 
efifective.2  If  the  law  is  repealed  w'ithout  a  reservation  it  is  to 
be  treated  as  if  it  never  existed ;  however,  where  the  materials 
have  been  furnished  then  the  right  becomes  a  vested  one  and 
it  can  not  be  destroyed  by  repealing  the  law.^    If  it  is  plain  that 


App.  672,  34  N.  E.  121,  51  Am. 
St.    312. 

Louisiana, — Vordenbaumen  v. 
Bartlett,  105  La.   752,  30  So.  219. 

New  York. — Van  Denburgh  v. 
Village  of  Greenbush,  66  N.  Y.  1. 

Wisconsin. — Bentley  v.  Adams, 
92  Wis.  386,  66  N.  W.   505. 

2  Toledo  Novelty  Works  v. 
Bernheimer,  8  Minn.  118. 

3  McKay  v.  City  of  New  York, 
46  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  579,  62  N. 
Y.   Supp.  58. 

4  Illinois. — Kendall  v.  Fader, 
199   111.  294,  65  N.  E.  318. 

Ohio. — Treloar  v.  Hamilton, 
225  111.  102,  80  N.  E.  75;  Kloep- 
pinger  v.  Grasser,  25  Ohio  C.  C. 
R.  90.  In  re  Mechanic's  Lien 
Land,  7  Ohio  N.  P.  668,  5  Ohio 
Dec.  564;  Gorman  v.  Bepler  (Com. 
PI.)  4  Ohio  N.  P.  241. 

1  Irwin  V.  Beynow,  4  Manitoba 
10. 


2  Purmort  v.  Tucker  Lumber 
Co.,  2  Colo.  470;  Christman  v. 
Charleville,  36  Mo.  610;  Dunwell 
V.  Bidwell,  8  Minn.  34;  Seattle  & 
W.  W.  R.  Co.  V.  Ah  Kow,  2  Wash. 
Terr.  36,  3  Pac.  188. 

3  Illinois. — Holcomb  v.  Boyn- 
ton,  151  111.  294,  37  N.  E.  1031; 
Boynton  v.  Holcomb,  49  111.  App. 
503. 

Kansas. — Weaver  v.  Sells,  10 
Kan.  609. 

Maine. — Frost  v.  Isley,  54  Me. 
345. 

Michigan. — Hanes  v.  Wadey, 
73  Mich.  178,  41  N.  W.  222,  2  L. 
R.  A.  498;  Kirkwood  v.  Hoxie, 
95  Mich.  62,  54  N.  W.  720,  35 
Am.  St.  549. 

Minnesota. — Bailey  v.  Mason, 
4  Minn.  546. 

North  Dakota- — Craig  v.  Herz- 
man,  9  N.  Dak.  140,  81  N.  W.  288. 


OPERATION  OF  REPEAL  OR  CHANGE  OF  LAW. 


[§6 


it  was  not  intended  to  destroy  rights  acquired  under  an  old 
law,  but  simply  to  consolidate  a  lien  under  the  old  law,  then  the 
remedy  may  be  had  under  the  new  one.'*  Unless  otherwise 
provided  by  law,^  the  law  governing  the  foreclosure  of  the  lien 
is  the  statute  in  force  at  the  time  the  petition  is  filed."^  The 
rights  of  the  parties  however  are  fixed  by  the  law  in  force  at 
the  time  the  contract  was  made,  even  though  a  later  law  is 
followed  in  the  procedure  of  foreclosure."^  Where  a  lien  is  to 
be  perfected  at  certain  time,  the  law  in  force  at  that  time 
controls.^  And  sometimes  it  is  held  where  some  of  the  ma- 
terial is  furnished,  while  one  law  is  in  force,  and  other  material 
when  another  law  is  in  force,  a  lien  for  each  should  be  perfected 
under  the  law  in  force  at  the  time  that  the  material  was  fur- 
nished.^    These  questions  arising  on  the  effect  of  the  change 


4  Sabin  v.  Connor,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
12,  197;  Stone  v.  Tyler,  173 
111.  147,  50  N.  E.  688;  Rhine  v. 
Mauk,  14  Mont.  Co.  Law  Rep. 
(Pa.)  197,  21  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  345; 
Alnslie  v.  Kohn,  16  Ore.  363,  19 
Pac.  97;  Joseph  N.  Eisendrath 
Co.  V.  Gebhardt,  222  III.  113,  78 
N.  E.  22. 

o  Nelson  v.  Sykes,  44  Minn. 
68,  46  N.  W.  207;  Welde  v.  Hen- 
derson, 53  Hun  (N.  Y.)  633,  6  N. 
Y.  Supp.  176;  Hopkins  v.  Jamie- 
son-Dixon  Mill  Co.,  11  Wash.  308, 
39  Pac.   815. 

California. — McCrea  v.  Crafg, 
23  Cal.  522;  Turney  v.  Saunders, 
5  111.  (4  Scam.)  527;  Barton  v. 
Steinmitz,  37  111.  App.  141. 

Illinois. — Berndt  v.  Armknecht, 
50    111.    App.   467. 

Kansas. — Nixon  v.  Cydon 
Lodge  No.  5,  Knights  of  Pyth- 
ias, of  Salina,  56  Kan.  298,  43 
Pac.  236;  Main  Street  Hotel  Co. 
V.  Horton  Hardware  Co.,  56  Kan. 
448,  43   Pac.   769. 


Minnesota.  —  Pond  Machine 

Tool  Co.  V.  Robinson,  38  Minn. 
272,   37  N.   W.   99. 

Missouri. — Hausere  v.  Hoff- 
man,  32  Mo.   334. 

North  Carolina. — Heckmann  v. 
Pinkney,  6  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.) 
371. 

6  Tennessee. — Phillips  v.  Ma- 
son, 54  Tenn.  (7  Heisk.)  61. 

"  Willamette  Falls  Transp.  & 
Mill  Co.  V.  Riley,  1  Ore.  183; 
Mahon  v.  Surerus,  9  N.  Dak.  57, 
81  N.  W.  64;  Griffin  v.  Seymour, 
15  Col.  487,  63  Pac.  809;  Kinsy  v. 
Eilerman,  23  Ky.  L.  913,  62  S.  W. 
1009;  McNicholas  v.  Tinsler,  127 
111.  App.  381;  Kelley  v.  Springer 
Id.;    Campbell  v.  Same,  Id. 

8  Willim  V.  Bernheimer,  5 
Minn.  288  (Gil.  229);  Tell  v. 
Woodruff,  45  Minn.  10,  47  N.  W. 
262. 

9  Bardwell  v.  Mann,  46  Minn. 
285,  48  N.  W.  1120;  Hill  v.  Lov- 
ell,  47  Minn.  293,  50  N.  W.  8L 


7] 


ORIGIN   AND  GENERAL   PRINCIPLES. 


10 


or  repeal  of  the  law,  present  some  perplexing  features  which 
are  now  generally  avoided  by  saving  clauses  in  the  various 
statutes.  The  time  to  prosecute  a  lien  will  not  be  cut  down  by 
a  later  act  providing  less  time.^*^ 

§  7.  Retroactive  effect. — As  a  lien  of  the  character  of  the 
mechanic's  lien  has  for  its  basis  a  contract  between  the  owner 
and  the  contractor,  it  would  impair  the  obligation  of  contracts 
within  the  constitutional  prohibition  to  make  that  a  lien  which 
was  not  subject  to  a  lien  at  the  time  the  contract  became  effec- 
tive. But  the  provision  is  not  violated  by  a  provision  which 
merely  relates  to  the  procedure  necessary  to  enforce  or  perfect 
the  lien.^  But  even  in  such  cases  the  act  will  be  held  to  apply 
to  future  contracts  and  procedure  unless  otherwise  specifically 
declared  in  the  act.^  And  the  act  itself  must  show  an  unmis- 
takable intention  to  have  the  law  act  retrospectively  before  it 


10  Nystrom  v.  London  &  N.  W. 
American  Mortg.  Co.,  47  Minn. 
31,  49  N.  W.  394;  Nystrom  v. 
Hamm,  47  Minn.  33,  49  N.  W. 
394;  Montgomery  v.  Allen,  21 
Ky.  L.  1001,  53  S.  W.  813;  Fox  v. 
Somerset  Odd  Fellows  Hall  & 
Auditorium  Co.,  21  Ky.  L.  1272,  54 
S.  W.  835.  Where  the  goods  were 
contracted  for  before  the  passage 
of  the  act  but  delivered  after  its 
approval — see  Horn  &  Brannen 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Steelman,  215  Pa.  187, 
64  Atl.  409. 

1  Craig  V.  Herzman,  9  N.  Dak. 
140,  81  N.  W.  288.  See  Dec.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  Sec.  6. 

2  Alahania. — Smith  v.  Kolb,  58 
Ala.  645;  Florence  Gas,  Elec- 
tric Light  &  Power  Co.  v.  Han- 
by,  101  Ala.  15,  13  So.  343. 

Colorado.  —  Chicago  Lumber 
Co.  v.  Dillon,  13  Col.  App.  207, 
56  Pac.  1131;  Townsend  v.  Wild, 
1  Col.   10. 


Florida. — McCarthy  v.  Havis, 
23   Fla.    508,    2    So.    819. 

Greorgia. — Stonewall  Jackson 
Loan  &  Building  Ass'n.  v.  Mc- 
Gruder,    43    Ga.    9. 

Illinois. — Springer  v.  Bower- 
man,    75    111.   App.   352. 

Kentucky. — Vass  v.  Otting,  22 
Ky.  551,  58  S.  W.  433. 

Maine. — Kendall  v.  Folsom,  34 
Me.    198. 

Massachusetts. — Pierce  v.  Cab- 
ot, 159  Mass.  202,  34  N.  E.  362; 
French  v.  Hussey,  159  Mass.  206 
34  N.  E.  362. 

Mississippi. — Andrew  v.  Wash- 
burn, 11  Miss.   (3  Sm.  &  M.)  109. 

New  Tork.  —  Donaldson  v. 
O'Connor,  1  E.  D.  Smth,  (N.  Y.) 
695;  Fitzpatrick  v.  Boylan,  57  N. 
Y.  433;  McDonald  v.  City  of  New 
York,  62  N.  Y.  Supp.  72,  29  Misc. 
Rep.    504. 

Ohio. — Kloeppinger  v.  Grasser, 
25  Ohio  C.  C.  90. 


11 


CONSTRUCTION  OF  LAW. 


u 


will  be  so  considered.^  The  time  of  the  enforcement  of  the 
lien,  being  a  part  of  the  procedure,  may  be  extended.*  Where 
the  contract  is  made  before  the  work  is  performed  or  the  ma- 
terials furnished  and  the  law  is  changed,  the  lien  can  be  en- 
forced under  the  new  law.  In  such  case  the  contract  will  be 
held  to  be  dated  when  the  work  is  done  or  the  materials  fur- 
nished.^ Possibly,  if  the  work  was  begun  before,  and  con- 
tinued after,  the  passage  of  the  law,  and  the  statute  did  not 
otherwise  provide,^  the  act  might  be  held  to  apply  on  the 
theory  that  the  owner  permitting  the  work  to  continue  would 
be  estopped  from  declaring  against  the  lien.'^  / 

§  8.  Construction  of  law. — With  the  growth  of  the  subject 
of  mechanics'  liens  there  has  become  a  somewhat  more  liberal 
rule  as  to  the  construction  to  be  placed  upon  these  laws.  This 
has  been  followed  to  some  extent  by  all  courts,  yet  in  states 
which  closely  adhere  to  the  common  law  rules,  these  statutes 
are  considered  to  be  in  derogation  of  the  common  law  and  are 
strictly  construed.  This  strict  construction  was  always  applied 


Pennsylvania. — Church   v.  Davis 

9  Watts,    (Pa.)    304. 

Texas — Central  &  M.  R.  Co. 
V.  Henning,  52  Tex.  466. 

Virginia. — Hendricks  v.  Fields, 
26   Grat.    (Va.)    447. 

3  Vanderpool  v.  LaCrosse  & 
M.  R.  Co.,  44  Wis.  652;  Bitter  v. 
Mouat  Lumber  &  Investment  Co. 

10  Col.  App.  307,  51  Pac.  519; 
Collum  V.  Pennsylvania  Paint  & 
Ochre  Co.,  185  Pa.  St.  411,  39 
Atl.  1009;  Howard  v.  American 
Boiler  Co.,  68  111.  App.  566;  Mc- 
Carthy V.  Havis,  23  Fla.  508,  2 
So.   819. 

4  Trim  v.  Willoughby,  44  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  189. 

5  Florida. — S  u  m  m  e  r  1  1  n  v. 
Thompson,  31  Fla.  369,  12  So. 
667. 


Indiana. — Goodbub  v.  Horn- 
ung's  Estate,  127  Ind.  181,  26  N. 
E.   770. 

Kansas. — Nixon  v.  Cydon 
Lodge  No.  5,  K.  of  P.  56  Kan. 
298,  43  Pac.  237. 

Massachusetts. — D  o  n  a  h  y  v. 
Clapp,   66  Mass.    (12   Cush.)    440. 

Minnesota.— O'Neil  v.  St.  Olaf's 
School,  26  Minn.  329,  4  N.  W.  47; 
Wheaton  v.  Berg,  50  Minn.  525, 
52  N.  W.  926. 

IVew  York. — Sullivan  v.  Brew- 
ster, 1  E.  D.  Smith,  8  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  207;  Hauptman  v. 
Catlin,  20  N.  Y.  247. 

f'  Steinmetz's  Ex'rs  v.  Boudi- 
not,   3  Serg.  &  R.    (Pa.)    541. 

"  Kerckhoff-Cuzner  Mill  & 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Olmstead,  85  Cal. 
80,  24  Pac.  648. 


8] 


ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL   PRINCIPLES. 


12 


to  the  question  whether  or  not  the  thing  for  which  a  hen  was 
claimed  came  within  the  law,  and  more  or  less  to  matters  of 
procedure.^  And  these  strict  constructionists  hold  that  the  act 
should  not  be  extended  beyond  the  letter  of  the  statute,  even  if 
within  the  reason,^  or  the  reasonable  import  of  the  words 
used.3  But  the  act  should  not  be  hypercritically  interpreted.^ 
As  to  general  contractors  it  is  construed  with  equal  favor.^ 
The  growing  view,  and  the  one  adopted  by  the  newer  states 
and  even  in  many  of  the  older  states,  is  that  the  act  should  be 


1  California. — Bottomly  v.  Grace 
Church,  2  Cal.  90. 

Connecticut. — National  Fire 

Proofing  Co.  v.  Huntington 
(Conn.)    71    Atl.    911. 

Illinois. — M.  Pugh  Co.  v.  Wal- 
lace, 198  111.  422,  64  N.  E.  1005; 
Kewanee  Boiler  Co.  v.  Genoa 
Electric  Co.,  106  111.  App.  230; 
Belanger  v.  Hersey,  90  111.  70; 
Carney  v.  Tully,  74  111.  375; 
Canisus  v.  Merrill,  65  111.  67; 
Huntington  v.  Barton,  64  111.  502. 

Iowa. — Greene  v.  Ely,  2  G. 
Greene,  (la.)  508;  Logan  v. 
Attix,  7  Clk   (la.)    77. 

Louisiana. — Landry  v.  Blanch- 
ard,  16  La.  Ann.   173. 

Michigan. — Willard  v.  Magoon, 
30  Mich.  273;  Wagar  v.  Briscoe, 
38    Mich.    587. 

Mississippi. — Jones  v.  Alex- 
ander, 10  Sm.  &  M.  (Miss.)  627. 

New  Mexico. — Minor  v.  Mar- 
shall, 6  N.  M.  194,  27  Pac.  481. 

New  Jersey. — Assotiates  of 
Jersey  County  v.  Davison,  29  N. 
J.    L.    (5    Dutch.)    415. 

New  York. — Dugan  v.  Brophy, 
55  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  121;  Rob- 
erts V.  Fowler,  4  Abb.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  263;  Mushlitt  v.  Silverman, 
50  N.  Y.  360;  Dart  v.  Fitch,  23 
Hun    (N.   Y.)    361. 


PennsylTania. — Appeal  of  Mc- 
Cay,  37  Pa.  St.  125. 

Texas. — McCreary  v.  Waco 
Lodge  No.  70,  I.  O.  0.  F.,  2  Posey, 
Unrep.  Cas.   (Tex.)   675. 

Utah. — Eccles  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Martin,  31  Utah,  241,  87  Pac.  713. 

West  Virginia. — Mayes  v.  RufC- 
ners,  8  W.  Va.  384. 

Canada. — Archibald  v.  Hubley, 
18  C.  S.  C.  116;  Haggerty  v.  Grant, 

2  B.   C.   176;    Smith  v.   Mcintosh, 

3  B.   C.    28. 

See  Dec.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics' 
Liens,  sec.  5.  Illinois  Statute  now 
declares  law  shall  be  liberally 
construed. 

2  Brady  v.  Anderson,  24  111. 
(14  Peck)  110;  Stephens  v. 
Holmes,  64  IlL  336;  Joseph  N. 
Eisendrath  Co.  v.  Gebhardt,  222 
111.  113,  78  N.  E.  22;  Provost  v. 
Shirk,   223   111.   468,  79   N.  E.   178. 

3  Mushlett  v.  Silverman,  50  N. 
Y.  360;  Eccles  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Martin,  31  Utah,  241,  87  Pac.  713. 

4  Hubbell  V.  Schreyer,  15  Abb. 
Prac.  (N.  Y.)  300,  56  N.  Y.  604; 
Williamson  v.  Shank  (Ind.  App.), 
83  N.  E.  641. 

5  Gould  v.  Wise,  18  Nev.  253, 
3  Pac.  30;  Eccles  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Martin,  31  Utah,  241,  87  Pac.  713. 


13 


CONSTRUCTION  OF  LAW. 


[{ 


liberally  construed,  and  many  consider  the  entire  statute  of 
a  remedial  nature.*^  This  rule  of  liberal  construction  is  adopted 
on  the  equitable  principle  that  when  labor  or  materials  are 
put  in  a  building  they  lose  their  identity  and  become  part  of  the 
real  estate  and  enhance  its  value,  and  it  would  be  inequitable 
and  unjust  to  deprive  the  owner  of  some  remedy  for  his  ex- 
pended labor  and  materials  and  suffer  another  to  retain  them 
without  cost,'^  and  hence  a  substantial  compliance  is  all  that  is 
required.^  These  courts  say  that  they  need  not  feel  hampered 
by  the  early  decisions,  that  the  lien  laws  have  now  become  a 
part  of  our  jurisprudence  and  their  equity  and  beneficence  are 
conceded  by  all.^  And  some  of  these  courts  while  using  the 
words  "strict  construction"  have  limited  the  use  of  the  mean- 
ing of  "strict  construction"  and  have  held  that  it  cannot  be 
applied  to  take  advantage  of  technicalities  to  deprive  the  hon- 
est laborer  of  his  reward,  but  such  a  "construction"  will  require 
only  a  "substantial  compliance"  with  the  statute,^^  and  that 


6  Arkansas. — White  v.  Chaffin, 
32  Ark.    59. 

Mississippi. — Sharpe  v.  Speng- 
ler,   48  Miss.   360. 

Missouri. — Oster  v.  Rabeneau, 
46  Mo.  595;  DeWitt  v.  Smith,  63 
Mo.  263;  Baldwin  v.  Merrick,  1 
Mo.  App.  281. 

Nebraska. — White  Lake  Lum- 
ber Co.   V.   Claffin,   16   N.   D.   601, 

Nerada. — Hunter  v.  Truckee 
Lodge  No.  14,  I.  O.  O.  F.,  14  Nev. 
24. 

North  Dakota. — Salzer  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Claffin,  16  N.  D.  601, 
113    N.   W.    1036. 

Oliio. — Williams  v.  Miller,  2 
Ohio  Dec.  119,  1  West.  Law 
Month.  409. 

Tennessee. — S.  B.  Luttrell  & 
Co.  V.  Knoxville  L.  &  J.  R.  Co. 
(Tenn),  105  S.  W.  565. 

United       States. — Russell       v. 


Hayner,  130  Fed.  90,  64  C.  C.  A. 
424. 

Alaska. — Jorgensen  Co.  v. 
Sheldon,  2  Alaska,   607. 

District  of  Columbia. — United 
States  V.  City  Trust,  Safe  De- 
posit &  Security  Co.,  21  App.  D. 
C.  369;  Hooven,  Owens  &  Rent- 
schler  Co.  v.  John  Featherston's 
Sons,  111  Fed.  81,  49  C.  C.  A. 
229. 

7  Hooven,  Owens  &  Rentschler 
Co.  V.  John  Featherston's  Sons, 
111  Fed.  91,  49  C.  C.  A.  229; 
Hooven  v.  Featherston,  68  Fed. 
778,  15  C.  C.  A.  67,  32  U.  S.  App. 
439. 

8  Springer  Land  Ass'n.  v.  Ford, 
168  U.  S.  513,  42  L.  ed.  562,  18 
Sup.  Ct.   170. 

9  Shaw  V.  Young,  87  Me.  27,  32 
Atl.  897. 

10  Minor  v.  Marshall,  6  N. 
Mex.  194.  27  Pac.  481. 


8] 


ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES. 


14 


courts  should  not  fritter  away  the  law's  meaning  by  construc- 
tion.^^  If  a  statute  be  susceptible  of  two  constructions,  one 
consistent  with  natural  equity  and  the  other  not,  the  courts 
should  give  the  former  construction  to  it.^^  'p^g  u^. 
doubted  rule  upon  the  question  whether  or  not  the  labor 
or  material  furnished  is  within  the  act,  is  that  there  must  be 
a  substantial  compliance  showing  that  the  act  covers  the  labor 
or  material  for  which  the  lien  is  claimed. ^^  Upon  questions 
relating  to  procedure  and  the  perfecting  of  the  lien,  the  statute 
is  always  liberally  construed.^ ^  By  reason  of  the  constant 
changes,  and  dissimilarity  of  the  statutes  of  different  states, 
decisions  of  one  state  are  not  considered  of  as  great  a  value  in 
another  as  they  otherwise   might  be,  and  the  statute  under 


11  Malter  v.  Falcon  M.  Co.,  IS 
Nev.  209,  212,  2  Pac.  50. 

12  Lombard  v.  Trustees  of  the 
Young  Men's  Library  Associa- 
tion  fund,   73   Ga.   323. 

13  Gary  Hardware  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Garty,  10  Col.  App.  200,  50  Pac. 
744. 

i^IVo  rule  of  strict  or  liberal 
construction. — Much  of  the  seem- 
ing conflict  in  authority  as  to 
the  rule  for  the  construction  of 
mechanic's  lien  statutes  is  more 
apparent  than  real.  It  arises 
in  many  instances  from  a  neg- 
lect to  scrutinize  closely  the 
special  circumstances  of  the  case 
under  review  and  the  particular 
part  of  the  statute  construed, 
and  also  from  the  fact,  often 
overlooked,  that  there  are  ma- 
terial differences  in  the  statutes 
of  the  various  states.  It  is  too 
frequently  asserted  broadly  and 
hastily  that  mechanic's  lien  stat- 
utes are  in  derogation  of  the 
common  law,  and  therefore  sub- 
ject to  the  well-known  canon  of 


construction  that  they  must  be 
construed  strictly.  This  is  true 
as  to  parts  of  such  statutes,  but 
it  also  may  be,  and  invariably  is, 
the  case  as  to  the  greater  por- 
tion of  the  same  statute  that  its 
provisions  are  remedial  in  their 
nature,  and  hence,  according  to 
a  rule  of  construction  equally 
well  settled,  should  be  liberally 
construed.  If  the  facts  of  each 
case  are  thoroughly  investi- 
gated with  reference  to  this  dis- 
tinction the  opinions  of  courts 
can  be  reconciled  in  many  in- 
stances where  they  would  ap- 
pear at  first  glance  to  be  in  di- 
rect conflict.  No  inflexible  rule 
of  either  strict  or  liberal  con- 
struction can  be  laid  down 
(vhich  will  be  applicable  to 
every  part  of  such  a  statute  in 
the  absence  of  the  provisions, 
in  the  statute  itself,  as  to  how 
it  should  be  construed. 

Colorado. — Gary  Hardware  Co. 
V.  McGarty,  10  Col.  App.  200,  50 
Pac.   746. 


15 


TO  WHOM  RIGHT  GRANTED  TO  SECURE  LIEN. 


which  a  decision  is  rendered  must  usually  be  consulted  to 
ascertain  the  weight  to  be  given  to  any  holding  of  the  court.^^ 
However,  as  to  the  principles  involved,  which  are  the  same 
upon  general  questions,  decisions  of  other  states  will  have 
their  due  weight.^^  The  legislature  cannot  exercise  judicial 
functions  and  declare  what  the  law  is  or  has  been.^'^  When 
the  legislature  adopts  a  law  from  another  state  it  may  be  pre- 
sumed to  know  the  construction  placed  upon  the  law  by  the 
courts  of  such  state  and  to  adopt  it  with  the  enactment  of  the 
law.^^  Of  course  if  the  intention  of  the  legislature  is  doubt- 
ful the  courts  would  have  the  power  to  make  clear  its  in- 
tention.^^ Where  a  law  has  been  construed  and  re-enacted 
it  may  be  presumed  that  the  legislature  intended^^tlie  new  law 
should  have  the  construction  of  the  old  one.^o  But  in  no  case 
has  the  legislature  power  to  contravene  a  constitutional  pro- 
vision.2i 


9J  To  whom  right  granted  to  secure  lien. — The  power  to 
oDfain  a  lien  being  given  by  statute,  of  course,  no  one  can  ob- 


Connecticut. — Chapin  v.  Persse 
&  Brooks  Paper  Works,  30  Conn. 
461,  79  Am.  Dec.  263. 

Michigan. — Smalley  v.  North- 
western Terra-Cotta  Co.,  113 
Mich.  141,  71  N.  W.  466. 

Kew  York. — Hubbell  v.  Schrey- 
er,  15  Abb.  Prac.  (N.  S.)  300, 
56  N.  Y.  604. 

Tennessee. — Steger  v.  Arctic 
Refrigerating  Co.,  89  Tenn.  453, 
14  S.  W.  1087;  Nanz  v.  Cumber- 
land Gap  Park  Co.,  103  Tenn.  299, 
52  S.  W.  999,  47  L.  R.  A.;  Thomp- 
son V.  Baxter,  92  Tenn.  305,  21  S. 
W.  668. 

15  Great  Western  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Hunter  Bros.  15  Neb.  36;  Nanz 
V.  Cumberland  Gap  Co.,  103 
Tenn.  299,  52  S.  W.  999;  Pacific 
Rolling    Mills    Co.    v.    James    St. 


Const.  Co.,  68  Fed.  966,  16  C.  C. 
A.    68. 

icAste  V.  Wlson,  14  Colo.  App. 
323,  59  Pac.  846;  Nanz  v.  Cum- 
berland Gap  Park  Co.,  103  Tenn. 
299,   52   S.  W.   999. 

'^'^  Titusville  Iron  Works  v. 
Keystone  Oil  Co.,  122  Pa.  St. 
627,   15   Atl.   917. 

18  Hunter  v.  Truckee  Lodge, 
14  Nev.   24. 

10  O'Connor  v.  Warner,  4 
Watts   &  S.    (Pa.)  .223. 

20  Kelley  v.  Northern  Trust 
Co.,  190  111.  401,  60  N.  E.  585; 
Eccles  Lumber  Co.  v.  Martin,  31 
Utah,  241,   87  Pac.  713. 

21  Meyer  v.  Berlandi,  39  Minn. 
438,  40  N.  W.  513,  12  Am.  St. 
663,  7  L.  R.  A.   777.     See   sec.  1. 


§  9]  ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES.  16 

tain  a  lien  unless  he  comes  within  the  provisions  of  the  statute. 
I      The  earlier  lien  laws  were  made  to  apply  to  a  particular  class 
j     of  persons  generally  such  as  mechanics,  artisans,   etc.     The 
I     later  statutes,  however,  grant  the  power  to  obtain  a  lien  to 
i      any   person,   and   the   words    "any   person"   include   artificial,    / 
as  well  as  natural  persons.^     They  also  include  domestic  as  / 
well  as  foreign  corporations,^  non-residents,^  and  partnerships.*  / 
But  in  one  case  it  was  held  that  an  administrator  of  a  partner- 
ship was  not  included.^     Of  course  before  a  corporation  can 
legally  take  advantage  of  the  statute  it  must  be  doing  that 
which  is  not  ultra  vires.*^     Even  where  a  statute  granted  the 
power  to  "any  machinist,"  etc.,  to  file  a  lien,  it  was  held  that 
it  would  apply  to  a  corporation.'^     But  a  municipal  corpora- 
tion does  not  come  within  the  ordinary  terms  of  the  statute 
and  to  enable  it  to  file  a  lien  the  authority  must  be  expressly 
given.^     Of  course  the  owner  could  not  take  a  lien  on  his  own 
property  f  and  even  where  he  was  a  member  of  a  voluntary 
association  his  right  to  a  lien  was  postponed  to  those  who 
were  not  members.^^     As  to  the  capacity  of  a  natural  person 

1  Chapman  v.  Brewer,  43  Neb.  wood  v.  Tennessee  Mfg.  Co.  & 
890,  62  N.  W.  320.  See  Dec.  Dig.  Agricultural  School,  32  Tenn. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  sec.   8.  (2  Swan)   130. 

2  Georgia. — Loudon  v.  Coleman,  ^  Chambersburg  Woolen  Mfg. 
59    Ga.    653.  Co.    v.    Hazelet,    3    Brewst.    (Pa.) 

Nebraska. — Chapman    v.    Brew-  98. 

er,   43  Neb.   890,   62  N.  W.   320.  5  Richardson    v.    O'Connell,    88 

New    York. — Gaskell    v.    Beard,  Mo.   App.   12. 

58  Hun  101,  11  N.  Y.  Supp.  399;  6  Dallas  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.  v. 

New     York    Architectural     Terra  Wasco    Woolen    Mfg.    Co.,   3    Ore. 

Cotta  Co.  V.  Williams,  184  N.  Y.  527. 

579,   77  N.   E.  1192.  '  Loudon    v.    Coleman,    59    Ga. 

Oregon. — Dallas       Lumber       &  653. 

Mfg.    Co.    V.    Wasco  Woolen    INIfg.  s  Yates     v.     Meadville,     56     Pa. 

Co.,   3    Ore.   527.  St.  21;   Mauch  Chunck  v.  Shartz, 

Texas Fagan     v.     Boyle     Ice  61   Pa.   St.   399. 

Mach.  Co.,   65  Tex.  324.  9  Stevenson      v.      Stonehill,      5 

Utah.— Doane      v.      Clinton,      2  Whart.    (Pa.)    301. 

Utah,  417.  10  Babb  v.  Reed,  5  Rawle  (Pa.) 

3  Greenwood  v.  Tennessee  Mfg.  151. 
Co.,     32     Tenn.     133-135;     Green- 


~N 


17  PROPERTY  SUBJECT  TO  LIEN.  [§  10 

to  take  a  lien  the  same  rule  is  applied  as  in  the  making  of  con- 
tracts.^^ 

§  10.  Property  that  may  be  subject  to  a  lien. — Again  we 
are  obliged  to  look  to  the  statute  to  ascertain  whether  or  not 
a  certain  kind  of  property  is  liable  to  a  lien,  but  it  is  to  be 
understood  that  the  lien  does  not  cover  all  property  falling 
within  the  broad  designation  of  the  statute.  There  are  certain 
kinds  of  property  that  by  reason  of  the  uses  to  which  they  are 
put,  public  policy  will  not  permit  a  lien  attaching  to.  Most 
prominent  of  this  kind  of  property  is  that  which  belongs  to  a 
public  or  quasi  public  corporation  and  which  is  necessary  to 
the  performance  of  its  public  duties.  Such  property  is  also 
exonerated  from  seizure  on  execution.^  The  remedy  for  col; 
lection  of  money  expended  in  the  betterment  of  such  property 
is  usually  that  of  mandamus,^  and  in  some  jurisdictions  by  a 
sequestration  of  the  earnings.^  The  corporation  within  this  ex- 
ception must  be  in  fact  a  public  one.*  Merely  because  it  is  used 
by  the  public  will  not  do, as,  for  example,  the  property  of  a  church,^ 
or  a  college,-^'*  even  where  it  was  stipulated  that  they  should  not  be 

iiFagin  v.  Boyle,  65  Tex.  324;  &    Foundry    Co.    v.    Bullock     (C. 

Hasted  v.  Mather,  77  N.  Y.  388;  C.)    38  Fed.  565,  also  566. 

Donahy     v.        Clapp,      12     Cush.  See    Dec.    Dig.    tit.    Mechanics' 

(Mass.)    440.  Liens,  §  9. 

1  Indiana. — Kentucky      Lead    &  2  Arrison  v.  Company  D,  12  N. 

Oil    Co.    V.    New    Albany    Water-  Dak.  554,  98  N.  W.  83. 

works,   62  Ind.  63.  3  Foster   v.  Fowler,   60   Pa.    (10 

Iowa. — Thompson    v.    Stephens,  P.   F.    Smith)    27. 

131  Iowa  51,  107  N.  W.  1095.  ^  Arrison    v.    Company    D,    12 

Kentucky. — Ausbeck    v.    Schar-  N.  Dak.  554,  98  N.  W.  83;   Board 

dien,  20  Ky.  178,  45  S.  W.  507.  of  Education  of  Illinois  v.  Grene- 

Pennsylvania. — Guest  v.   Lower  baum,  39  111.   609.     See  Dec.  Dig. 

Merion    Water    Co.,    142    Pa.    610,  tit.  Corporations,  §  12. 

21    Atl.    1001,    28    W.    N.    C.    285;  5  Jones   v.   Trustees  of  Congre- 

McLeod       V.       Central       Normal  gation    of    Mount    Zion,    30    La. 

School     Ass'n.     of     Pennsylvania  Ann.    711;     Presbyterian    Church 

152  Pa.  575,  25  Atl.  1109,  32  Wkly.  v.  Allian,  10  Pa.  413. 

Notes  Cas.   37.  5aRay    County    Sav.    Bank    v. 

United     States. — McNeal      Pipe  Cramer,  54  Mo.  App.  587. 
2 


10] 


ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES. 


18 


encumbered,  are  not  exempted.*^  Then  there  are  some  kinds 
of  property  whose  use  excludes  the  idea  that  they  are  em- 
braced within  the  law,  as,  for  example,  railroad  lands,'^  or  de- 
pots erected  thereon.^  But  in  an  Ohio  case  it  was  held  that 
the  lien  would  attach  to  a  railroad  bridge,^  and  in  another  case 
to  a  street  railway  stable.^*^  But  a  street  railroad  power  house 
was  held  not  subject  to  a  lien.^^  In  the  latter  case,  however, 
the  fee  was  in  the  public.  There  is  no  principle  of  public  policy 
which  forbids  a  state  to  enact  laws  specially  subjecting  railroad 
property  to  mechanic's  liens.^^  Neither  the  valves,^^  pipes,!^ 
nor  plant  of  a  waterworks  supplying  the  city  with  water  are 
subject  to  a  lien.^-*  A  United  States  Court,  following  a  Wis- 
consin decision  which  was  afterwards  overruled,  decided  that 


6  University  of  Lewisburg  v. 
Reber,   43   Pa.    (7   Wright)    305. 

"  Schulenburg  v.  Memphis,  C. 
&  N.  W.  R.  Co.,  67  Mo.  442. 

8  Skrainka  v.  Rohan,  18  Mo. 
App.    340. 

9  41  Ohio  St.  37,  52  Am.  Rep. 
66.  Statute  must  so  provide. 
Nill  V.  Lacrosse  &  M.  R.  Co.,  11 
Wis  223;  Purtell  v.  Chicago 
Forge  &  Bolt  Co..  74  Wis.  132,  42 
N.   W.    265. 

10  Mcllvain  v.  Hestonville  & 
M.  R.  Co.,  5  Phila.  (Pa.)  13; 
Oberholtzer  v.  Norristown  Pass. 
Ry.  Co.  (Com.  PI.)  16  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  R.   13. 

11  Purtell  V.  Chicago  Forge  & 
Bolt  Co.,  74  Wis.  132,  42  N.  W. 
265. 

12  Chapman  Valve  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Oconto  Water  Co.,  89  Wis.  264, 
60  N.  W.   1004,  46  Am.  St.   830. 

13  McNeal  Pipe  &  Foundry  Co. 
v.  Bullock  (C.  C.)  38  Fed.  565; 
Kentucky  Lead  &  Oil  Co.  v.  New 
Albany    Waterworks,    62    Ind.    63. 

14  Chapman   Valve   Mfg.    Co.    v. 


Oconto    Water   Co.,    89    Wis.    264, 
60  N.  W.  1004,  46  Am.  St.  830. 

Embryo  Corporations. — Plain- 
tiffs had  contracted  to  build  a 
factory  for  $4,500,  the  contract 
being  that  as  soon  as  $4,500  was 
subscribed,  the  subscribers  should 
become  incorporated,  with  a 
capital  stock  of  $4,500  divided 
into  shares  of  $100  each,  to  be 
distributed  among  the  subscrib- 
ers according  to  the  amount  of 
thpir  subscriptions.  The  sub- 
scriptions of  the  defendants  ran 
from  $50  to  $300.  In  addition  to 
these  subscriptions,  one  C.  gave 
a  lot  for  the  building  for  two 
shares  of  stock.  There  being 
only  $3,225  paid  in,  the  builder 
took  a  mechanic's  lien  on  the 
building  and  lot,  and  brought  suit 
for  a  personal  judgment  against 
all  the  subscribers  jointly,  and  to 
foreclose  the  mechanic's  lien.  It 
was  held  that  the  lot  subscribed 
became  the  property  of  all  sub- 
scribers within  the  meaning  of 
the  mechanic's  lien  law,  and  waa 


19 


PROPERTY    SUBJECT   TO  LIEN. 


[§10 


a  lien  could  attach  to  a  waterworks  designed  to  supply  a  city.^^ 
This  is  contrary  to  the  usual  rule,  however.^^  If,  however,  the 
plant  has  not  yet  been  accepted  by  the  city,  the  lien  would 
attach.^"  The  fact  that  a  receiver  has  been  appointed  will  not 
prevent  the  property  being  subjected  to  a  lien.^^  As  a  general 
rule  the  lien  will  not  attach  to  the  building  separate  from  the 
land  upon  which  it  is  located.^^  So  it  has  been  held  there  is 
no  lien  for  tearing  down  a  building,  because  there  is  nothing 
added  to  the  land.^*^  The  presumption  is,  that  property  of  a 
public  nature  is  not  subject  to  the  lien,  and  it  will  take  an  ex- 
press statutory  provision  to  make  it  subject  to  the  lien.^i  As 
exemplifying  the  strictness  of  the  rule  adopted,  a  statute  which- 
provided  that  it  should  apply  to  "all  buildings,"  and  to  "cor- 


therefore  bound  by  and  subject  to 
the  mechanic's  lien.  Burnap  v. 
Sylvania  Butter  Co.,  7  Ohio  N.  P. 
217,  1  Ohio  S.  &  C.  P.  Dec.  107. 
This  decision  was  reversed  by 
the  Circuit  Court.  12  O.  C.  C. 
639. 

15  National  Foundry  Co.  &  Pipe 
Works  V.  Oconto  Water  Co.  (C.C.) 
52  Fed.  43;  Oconto  Water  Co.  v. 
National  Foundry  &  Pipe  Works 
(1893),  59  Fed.  19,  7  C.  C.  A.  603, 
18  U.  S.  App.  380. 

16  Badger  Lumber  Co.  v.  Marion 
Water  Supply  E.  L.  &  P.  Co.,  48 
Kan.  182,  also  48  Kan.  187,  30  Pac. 
117,  30  Am.  St.  306;  Southern 
Electrical  Supply  Co.  v.  Rolla 
Electric  Light  &  Power  Co.,  75 
Mo.  App.  622. 

17  McNeal  Pipe  &  Foundry  Co. 
V.  Rowland,  111  N.  C.  615,  16  S. 
E.  857,  20  L.  R.  A.  743;  Pittsburg 
Testing  Laboratory  v.  Milwaukee 
Electric  Ry.  &  Light  Co.,  110  Wis. 
633,  86  N.  W.  592;  Salem  v.  Lane 
&  Bodley  Co.,  90  111.  App.  560. 

18  In   re   Simonds  Furnace  Co., 


61  N.  Y.   Supp.  974,  30  Misc.    (N. 
Y.)   209. 

19  Belding  v.  Cushing,  67  Mass. 
(1  Gray)  576.  In  Gull  River  v. 
Briggs,  9  N.  D.  485,  84  N.  W.  349 
under  a  former  law  of  North  Da- 
kota, it  was  held,  where  a  person 
only  had  a  leasehold  interest, 
which  was  forfeited,  the  lien 
might  be  enforced,  and  the  build- 
ing sold  and  removed.  Leaver  v. 
Kilmer,  71  N.  J.  291;  59  A.  643; 
Brunner  v.  Picking,  75  111.  App. 
393;  Arnold  v.  Campbell,  3  In. 
Ter.  550,  64  S.  W.  532. 

20  Holzhour  v.  Meer,  59  Mo. 
434. 

21  Georgia. — Albany  v.  Lynch, 
119  Ga.  491;   46  S.  E.  622. 

Iowa. — Lewis  v.  Chickasaw 
County,  50  Iowa,  234.  Whiting 
V.  Story  County,  54  Iowa,  81;  6 
N.  W.  137,  37  Am.  Rep.  189. 

Illinois. — Salem  v.  Lane  &  Bod- 
ley Co.,   90  111.  App.  560. 

Maine.— A.  L.  &  E.  F.  Goss  Co. 
V.  Greenleaf,  98  Me.  436;  57  A. 
581. 


10] 


ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES. 


20 


porations  as  well  as  individuals,"  was  held  not  to  extend  to 
the  property  of  municipal  corporations.22  As  examples  of 
what  have  been  held  excluded  may  be  mentioned  a  court  house,^^ 


Micbigan. — Knapp     v.     Swaney, 

56  Mich.   345;    23   N.  W.   162;    56 
Am.  Rep.  397. 

Mississippi.  —  Panola  County 
Sup'rs  V.  Gillen,  59  Miss.  198. 

Nebraska. — Ripley  v.  Gage 
County  Com'rs,  3  Neb.  397. 

New  Tork. — Tice  v.  Atlantic 
Const.  Co.,  65  N.  Y.  Supp.  79;  52 
App.  Div.  284. 

Oregon. — Portland  Lumbering 
&  Mfg.  Co.  V.  School  Dist.  No.  1, 
13  Ore.  283,  10  Pac.  350. 

Pennsylvania. — Wilson  v.  Hunt- 
ingdon County  Com'rs,  7  Watts 
&  S.    (Pa.)   197. 

Texas. — Atascosa  Co.  v.  Angus, 
83  Tex.  202;  18  S.  W.  563;  29 
Am.  St.  Rep.  637. 

City  of  Dallas  v.  Loonie,  83 
Tex.  291,  18  S.  W.  726. 

Herring-Hall-Marvin  Co.  v. 
Kroeger,   23   Tex.   Civ.   App.    672; 

57  S.   W.   980. 

Virginia. — Phillips  v.  Rector, 
etc.,  of  University  of  Virginia, 
97  Va.  472;  34  S.  E.  66;  47  L.  R. 
A.  284;  Hicks  v.  Roanoke  Brick 
Co.,  94  Va.  741;    27  S.  B.  596. 

Wisconsin. — Wilkinson  v.  Hoff- 
man,  61  Wis.  637;    21  N.   W.   816. 

West  Virginia,— Hall's  Safe  & 
Lock  Co.  v.  Scites,  38  W.  Va. 
691;    IS  S.  E.  895. 

Eeason  for  not  allOTving. — It  is 
easy  to  see  vsrhat  detriment  might 
follow  if  lands  and  buildings  held 
for  public  uses,  as  for  instance, 
for  parks,  court-houses,  jails, 
town   halls,    or   common    schools. 


could  be  sold  to  satisfy  the  debts 
or  defaults  of  municipal  corpora- 
tions having  the  legal  title.  The 
public  uses  would  be  the/eby  an- 
nihilated. Courts  have  presumed 
that  this  could  not  have  been  in- 
tended, and  accordingly  have  de- 
cided, as  a  matter  of  public  policy, 
that  lands  or  buildings  so  held 
are  not  subject  to  mechanic's 
liens. 

Ferguson  v.  Neilson,  17  R.  I. 
81;    33  Am.  St.  855. 

State  not  inclnded. — It  is  an 
established  canon  of  statutory 
construction  that  the  state  is  not 
to  be  considered  as  within  the 
purview  of  a  statute  unless  ex- 
pressly named  therein,  however 
general  and  comprehensive  the 
language  otherwise;  as  a  corol- 
lary public  buildings  constructed 
by  the  state  or  a  political  sub- 
division of  the  state  and  not  for 
pecuniary  profit,  are  not  consid- 
ered within  the  purview  of  a 
statute  imposing  liens  on  build- 
ings in  certain  cases,  unless  they 
are  expressly  named. 

A.  L.  &  E.  F.  Goss  Co.  v.  Green- 
leaf,  98  Me.  436;  57  A.  581.  See 
cases  cited  in  35  L.  R.  A.  141. 

22  George  W.  Emory  &  Co.  v. 
Commissioners  of  Town  of  Lau- 
rel, 3  Pennewill,  67;   55  A.  118. 

23  Bouton  V.  McDonough  Coun- 
ty Sup'rs,  84  111.  384;  Parke 
County  Com'rs  v.  O'Connor,  86 
Ind.  531;  44  Am.  Rep.  338.  Bur- 
lington Manuf'g  Co.  v.   Board  of 


21 


PROPERTY   SUBJECT   TO  LIEN. 


[§10 


a  county  bridge,^*  a  lunatic  asylum,^^  a  fire  bell,^^  a  public 
library,^'^  and  school  buildings.^s     Some  States  have  forbid- 


Courthouse  &  City  Hall  Com'rs, 
67  Minn.  327;  69  N.  W.  1091. 
Snow  V.  Durham  County  Com'rs, 
112  N.  C.  335;  17  S.  E.  176.  Atas- 
cosa County  V.  Angus,  83  Tex. 
202,  18  S.  W.  563;  29  Am.  St. 
Rep.  637.  In  (Jewell  County 
Com'rs  V.  Snodgrass  &  Young 
Mfg.  Co.,  52  Kan.  253;  34  Pac. 
741)  the  contrary  was  held  be- 
cause no  reservation  was  made  in 
the  code. 

24  Pike  County  Com'rs  v.  Nor- 
rington,  82  Ind.  190.  Loring  v. 
Small,  50  Iowa  271;  32  Am.  Rep. 
136.  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Malheur 
County,  45  Pac.  781.  McPheeters 
V.  Merrimac  Bridge  Co.,  28  Mo. 
467. 

25  People  V.  Butler,  2  Neb.  5. 
2C  Leonard  v.  Reynolds,  7  Hun, 

73    (N.   Y.). 

27  A.  L.  &  E.  F.  Goss  Co.  v. 
Greenleaf,  98  Me.  436;  57  A.  571. 
Young  V.  Inhabitants  of  Fal- 
mouth, 183  Mass.  80;  66  N.  E. 
419. 

28  Colorado.  —  Florman  v. 
School  Dist.  No.  11,  El  Paso 
County,  6  Colo.  App.  319,  40  Pac. 
469. 

Illinois. — Board  of  Education 
of  Dist.  No.  3  V.  Neidenberger, 
78  111.  58.  Quinn  v.  Allen,  85 
111.  39.  Thomas  v.  Board  of  Ed- 
ucation of  Urbana  School  Dist. 
71  111.  283.  Thomas  v.  Trustees 
of  Illinois  Industrial  University, 
71  111.  310. 

Indiana.— Fatout  v.  School 
Com'rs,  102  Ind.  223,  1  N.  E.  389. 

Iowa. — Charnock      v.      District 


Tp.  of  Colfax,  51  Iowa,  70,  50  N. 
W.  286;  33  Am.  Rep.  116. 

Massachusetts. — Staples  v.  City 
of  Somerville,  176  Mass.  237; 
57  N.  E.  380.  Lessard  v.  Town 
of  Revere,  171  Mass.  294;  50  N. 
E.  533. 

Minnesota. — Jordan  v.  Board 
of  Education  of  Taylor's  Falls,  39 
Minn.   298;    39   N.   W.   801. 

Missouri. — Abercrombie  v.  Elv. 
60  Mo.  23.  Hastings  v.  Woods, 
2  Mo.  App.   148. 

Montana. — Whiteside  v.  School 
Dist.  No.  5  of  Flathead  County, 
20  Mont.  44;   49  Pac.  445. 

New  York. — Brinckerhoff  v. 
Board  of  Education  of  New  York, 
37  How.  Prac.  (N.  Y.)  499;  6 
Abb.  Prac.  (N.  S.)  428.  Poillon 
V.  City  of  New  York,  47  N.  Y. 
666.  Terwilliger  v.  Wheeler,  81 
N.  Y.  S.  173,  81  App.  Div.  460. 

Pennsylyania. — Williams  v.  Con- 
trollers of  Public  Schools  of 
First  School  Dist.  18  Pa.  275. 

Utah. — Board  of  Education  of 
Salt  Lake  City  v.  Salt  Lake 
Pressed  Brick  Co.,  13  Utah,  211; 
44  Pac.  709. 

United  States. — Missouri  v.  Tie- 
dermann,  10  Fed.  20,  3  McCrary 
399.  Schoolhouse  liable  on  the 
ground  that  statute  makes  no  ex- 
ception. Moore  v.  Protestant 
School  Dist.  5  Man.  L.  R.  49. 

Yermont.— Greennough  v.  Nich- 
ols, 30  Vt.  768.  A  state  reform 
school  building  is  not  liable.  Pat- 
lerson  v.  Pennsylvania  Reform 
School,  92   Pa.   229. 


10] 


ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES. 


22 


den  a  lien  on  public  buildings  in  their  constitutions.^^ 
But  if  not  forbidden  by  the  constitution  and  the  statute  is 
express,  the  property  will  be  subject  to  a  lien.^*^  Homesteads 
and  exempted  property  under  homestead  laws  are  liable  the 
same  as  other  property,  the  law  deeming  it  more  equitable 
to  protect  the  man  who  puts  his  labor  or  money  into  the 
property,  than  to  preserve  it  for  the  family. ^^  The  intent  to 
exempt  this  property  from  the  operation  of  the  mechanic's  lien 
law  must  be  expressly  declared  by  the  statute^^  qj-  the  consti- 
tution.^^ Where  the  law  makes  a  homestead  exempt  from  sale, 
it  must  be  declared  as  a  homestead  before  the  lien  is  filed.^'* 
But  the  lien  cannot  attach  to  land  acquired  under  the  United 
States  homestead  act,  before  the  patent  is  issued.  In  some 
few  cases  it  is  held  that  the  mechanic  cannot  have  his  lien  if 
he  knows  the  property  upon  which  he  is  placing  his  work  or 
materials  is  a  homestead.^^     In  other  states  in  order  to  hold  a 


29  Mayrhofer  v.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, 89  CaL  110,  26  Pac.  646, 
23  Am.  St.  Rep.  451. 

30  Commissioners  of  Public  In- 
struction of  City  of  Trenton  v. 
Fell,  52  N.  J.  Eq.  689,  29  Atl.  816; 
Bell  V.  City  of  New  York,  105  N. 
Y.  139,  11  N.  E.  495;  Hovey  v. 
Town  of  East  Providence,  17  R.  I. 
80,  20  Atl.  205,  9  L.  R.  A.  156. 

31  Alabama. — Tyler  v.  Jewett, 
82  Ala.  93,  2  So.  905;  McAnally  v. 
Hawkins  Lumber  Co.,  109  Ala. 
397,  19   So.   417. 

Arkansas. — Anderson  v.  Sea- 
mans,  49  Ark.  475,  5  S.  W.  799; 
Murray  v.  Rapley,  30  Ark.  568. 

Pennsylvana. — A  p  p  e  a  1  of 
Laucks,  24  Pa.  426. 

Tennessee. — Thompson  v.  Wick- 
ersham,    68   Tenn.    (9   Baxt.)    216. 

Washington. — Parsons  v.  Pear- 
son, 9  Wash.  48,  36  Pac.  974.  See 
Dec.    Dig.    tit.    Mechanic's    Lien, 


§  14.     Tinsley  v.   Boykin,   46   Tex. 
592. 

32  Richards  v.  Shear,  70  Cal. 
186,  11  Pac.  607;  Walsh  v.  Mc- 
Menomy,  74  Cal.  356;  16  Pac.  17; 
wife  estopped — Roane  v.  Murphy 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  96  S.  W.  782. 

33  Cogel  V.  Mickow,  11  Minn. 
475  (Gil.  354) ;  Tuttle  v.  Howe,  14 
Minn.  145  (Gil.  113),  100  Am.  Dec. 
205;  Keller  v.  Struck,  31  Minn. 
446,  18  N.  W.  280;  Coleman  v. 
Ballandi,  22  Minn.  144;  conflict 
with  constitution — Volker-Schow- 
croft  Lumber  Co.  v.  Vance,  32 
Utah  74,  88  Pac.  896. 

34  Walsh  V.  McMenomy,  74  Cal. 
356,  16  Pac.  17;  Parsons  v.  Pear- 
son, 9  Wash.  48,  36  Pac.  974;  re- 
stricted to  one  acre — People's  In- 
dependent Rice  Mill  Co.  v.  Venoit, 
117  La.  999,  42  So.  480. 

35  Kansas  Lumber  Co.  v.  Jones, 
32  Kan.  195,  4  Pac.  74;    Paige  v. 


23 


INTEREST   OR    ESTATE   SUBJECT    TO   LIEN. 


[§11 


lien  on  the  homestead  the  contract  must  be  in  writing.^^ 
Formerly  it  was  questionable  whether  a  married  woman's 
property  could  be  subjected  to  a  lien,  but  now  generally  she  is 
given  full  power  to  contract  and  her  property  is  liable.^'^  In 
cases  where  the  statute  does  not  grant  a  lien  because  of  public 
policy  or  any  of  the  reasons  hereinbefore  stated,  the  mechanic 
cannot  enforce  his  claim  by  holding  possession  of  the  property 
until  paid.^^ 

§  11.     Quantity  of  Interest  or  Estate  Subject  to  Lien. — It 

may  be  stated  as  a  general  rule  that  whatever  interest  or  own- 
ership the  person  making  the  contract^  with  the  mechanic 
has  in  the  land  upon  which  the  building  is  to  be  erected,  can 
be  subjected  to  the  lien.  The  statutes  generally  use  the  word 
"owner"  as  indicating  what  degree  of  interest  or  estate  in  the 
land  is  sufficient  to  be  subjected  to  a  lien.  This  word  "owner" 
is  a  word  of  common  parlance  and  ordinarily  defined  as  one 


Peters,  70  Wis.  178,  35  N.  W.  328, 
5  Am.  St.  Rep.  156;  Haldeman  v. 
McDonald  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  58  S. 
W.  1040. 

36  McAlister  v.  Des  Rochers, 
132  Mich.  381,  93  N.  W.  887,  9 
Detroit  Leg.  N.  645. 

Pews  in  Church. — A  church  is 
a  "building"  within  Hill's  Ann 
Laws,  3669,  giving  a  lien  for  ma- 
terial furnished  and  used  in  con- 
struction of  any  "building"  and 
is  not  exempted  by  sec.  282, 
subd.  5,  providing  that  pews 
occupied  by  householders  or  their 
families,  in  a  place  of  public  wor- 
ship, shall  be  exempt.  Harris- 
burg  Lumber  Co.  v.  Washburn, 
29  Ore.  150,  44  Pac.  390.  Building 
sold  separately — Holliday  v. 
Matheson,  146  Mich.  336,  109  N. 
W.  669,  13  Detroit  Leg.  N.  816. 

37  Smith  V.  Gauby,  43  Fla.  683, 


30  So.  683;  O'Neil  v.  Percival,  20 
Fla.  937,  51  Am.  Rep.  634;  Mac- 
Farlane  v.  Southern  Lumber  & 
Supply  Co.,  47  Fla.  277,  36  So. 
1029;  Finger  v.  Hunter,  130  N.  C. 
529,  41  S.  E.  890. 

3S  City  of  Platteville  v.  Bell,  66 
Wis.  326,  28  N.  W.  404.  Where 
the  owner  of  a  homestead  volun- 
tarily incumbers  it  in  the  manner 
prescribed  by  Rev.  St.  1898,  sec. 
1155,  by  giving  a  material  man 
furnishing  materials  for  an  im- 
provement thereon  a  lien  there- 
for, the  material  man  acquires  a 
lien  not  by  virtue  of  the  statute 
creating  a  lien,  but  by  virtue  of 
the  contract.  Volker-Scowcroft 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Vance,  32  Utah  74, 
88    Pac.    896. 

1  Jones  V.  Walker,  63  N.  Y.  612; 
Zeigler  v.  Galvin,  45  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
44;   King  v.  Smith,  42  Minn.   286, 


11] 


ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES. 


24 


having  dominion  over  a  thing,-  which  ownership  is  held  to 
include  a  fee  simple,  an  estate  for  life  or  any  less  estate  than  a 
fee.^  As  a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that  if  the  contracting 
owner  has  an  interest  which  he  can  convey,^  or  mortgage,^  he 
has  such  an  interest  as  may  be  subjected  to  a  lien.  The  in- 
choate right  of  dower,°  or  curtesy,  is  not  subject  to  a  lien.'^ 
But  after  it  has  been  assigned  it  may  be.^  A  guardian  is  not 
an  owner  within  the  law,^  neither  is  a  mortgagee  unless  he  is 
in  possession. ^^  A  minor  not  being  able  to  contract,  cannot 
make  his  property  subject  to  a  lien  unless  he  ratifies  the  con- 
tract after  he  reaches  his  majority. ^^  The  fact  that  there  is  a 
mortgage  will  not  prevent  the  mortgagor  from  making  the 
property  subject  to  a  lien,  and  this  though  proceedings  to 
foreclose  are  pending. ^2  Where  there  is  a  valid  contract  to 
convey  and  build,  the  purchaser  of  land  has  an  equitable  title 
to  wdiich  the  lien  can  attach,  though  the  legal  title  has  not 
passed  to  him.^^     Thus  where  one  person  owns  the  land  and 


44  N.  W.  65.  See  Dec.  Dig.  Es- 
tates or  interest  subject  to  lien, 
§  15.     See  §  132. 

2  Benjamin  v.  Wilson,  34  Minn. 
520,  26  N.  W.  725;  Fresno  Loan  & 
Savings  Bank  v.  Husted  (Cal.), 
49    Pac.   194. 

3  Arkansas. — White  v.  Chaffin, 
32   Ark.   59. 

Illinois. — Tracey  v.  Rogers,  69 
111.   662. 

Indiana. — Littlejohn  v.  Mill- 
irons,  7   Ind.  125. 

Kansas. — Hathaway  v.  Davis, 
32  Kan.  693,  5  Pac.  120. 

Minnesota. — Benjamin  v.  Wil- 
son, 34  Minn.  517,  26  N.  W.  725. 

Ohio. — Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2 
Ohio  S.  114. 

■i  Montandon  v.  Deas,  14  Ala.  33, 
48   Am.    Dec.    84. 

5  Littlejohn  v.  Millirons,  7  Ind. 
125;   Tracy  v.  Rogers,  69' 111.  662. 


6  Gove  V.  Gather,  23  111.  585; 
Bishop  V.  Bogle,  9  Ind.  169 ;  John- 
son V.  Dahlgren,  14  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
623,  36  N.  Y.  Supp.  806;  Van 
Vronker  v.  Eastman,  7  Mete. 
(Mass.)  157. 

"  Spinning  v.  Blackburn,  13 
Ohio    St.    131. 

8  Redman  v.  Williamson,  2 
Iowa  488. 

9  Copley  V.  O'Neil,  57  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)    299. 

10  Gox  V.  Burderick,  4  E.  D. 
Smith,  (N.  Y.)  721;  Ombony  v. 
Jones,  19  N.  Y.  234. 

11  Alvery  v.  Reed,  115  Ind.  148; 
McGarty  v.  Garer,  49  111.  53. 

12  Green  v.  Sprague,  120  111. 
416,  11  N.  E.  859. 

13  Packard  v.  Sugarman,  66  N. 
Y.  Supp.  30,  31  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
623. 


25 


INTEREST  OR  ESTATE  SUBJECT  TO  LIEN. 


[§11 


he  agrees  with  another  that  he  shall  erect  a  building  that 
shall  be  used  by  them  jointly/^  or  where  one  is  in  possession 
under  contract  of  purchase,  the  lien  may  attach.^^  The  fact 
that  the  contracting  owner  might  lose  his  interest  before 
trial/^  or  go  into  bankruptcy/'^  will  not  relieve  the 
property  from  liability  to  a  lien.^^  As  a  general  rule  it  may 
be  said  that  any  equitable  interest  is  subject  to  the  lien.^^ 
This  would  include  all  trust  estates.^o  Usually,  even 
where  not  so  specified  in  the  statute,  a  leasehold  interest  is 
subject    to    a    lien,2i     even    if    it    be    an    estate    for    years 


14  Hooker  v.  McGlone,  42  Conn. 
95;  Miller  v.  Schmitt,  67  N.  Y. 
Supp.    1077. 

15  King  V.  Smith,  42  Minn.  286, 
44  N.  W.  65;  Short  v.  Stephens, 
92  Mo.  App.  151. 

16  Sawyer- Austin  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Clark,  82  Mo.  App.  225. 

17  Keller  v.  Denmead,  68  Pa. 
(18  P.  F.  Smith)   449. 

18  Goldheim  v.  Clark,  68  Md. 
498,  13  Atl.   363. 

19  Goldheim  v.  Clark,  68  Md. 
498,  13  Atl.  363;   Atkins  v.  Little, 

17  Minn.  342  (Gil.  320) ;  Kellar  v. 
Denmead,  68  Pa.  St.  449.  See  Dec. 
Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  18. 
The  contrary  has  been  held  in 
New  Jersey;  Dalrymple  v.  Ram- 
sey, 45  N.   J.  Eq.    (18   Stew.)    494, 

18  Atl.  105. 

20  Franklin  Sav.  Bank  v.  Taylor, 
131  111.  376,  23  N.  E.  397.  See  Dec. 
Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  21. 
The  reason  assigned  is  because 
it  is  a  chattel  interest;  there  is  a 
strong  dissenting  opinion.  A 
husband's  interest  in  a  lease  for 
an  unexpired  term  of  999  years 
owned  by  his  wife,  can  not  be 
subjected  to  the  lien.  Flannery 
V.  Rohrmayer,  49  Conn.  27. 


Inyestment   of   trust   funds. — A 

fund  held  for  the  use  of  a  married 
woman,  the  principal  at  her  death 
to  go  to  her  minor  son,  was  or- 
dered by  the  court  to  be  invested 
in  improved  city  property.  On  the 
occupied  land  selected  A.  agreed 
to  erect  some  buildings,  to  be 
paid  for  out  of  the  fund,  the 
agreed  price  for  which  was  added 
to  the  consideration  in  the  deed 
of  the  land.  Held,  that  A.  could 
enforce  payment  out  of  the  land 
so  purchased,  and  the  expense 
should  be  borne  by  the  widow  and 
son  proportionately  to  their 
shares.  Carey  v.  Kemper,  40  Ohio 
St.  79. 

Occupying  claimant. — The  lien 
attaches  to  any  equitable  in- 
terest in  the  land  growing  out 
of  the  amelioration  thereof  by 
the  debtor,  and  any  right  he  may 
have  under  the  statute  protecting 
occupying  claimants.  Dakin  v. 
Lecklider,  19  Ohio  C.  C.  R.  254, 
10   O.   C.   D.   308. 

2 1  Alabama. — M  ontandon  v. 
Deas,  14  Ala.  33,  48  Am.  Dec.  84. 

Arkansas. — Meek  v.  Parker,  63 
Ark.   367,   38   S.  W.   900. 

25 


11] 


ORIGIN  AND  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES. 


26 


only,  22  or  for  months.^^  This  is  true  where  the  lease  is  in 
parol,  even  though  required  to  be  in  writing,  if  it  is  partly 
performed.^'*  The  fact  that  it  is  upon  ground  rent  for  a  speci- 
fied time  will  not  change  the  rule.-^  And  it  may  be  enforced 
against  the  lessee's  assignee,^^  nothing  but  the  lessee's  in- 
terest being  liable.^'''  Where  the  lease  permits  a  removal  of 
buildings  at  the  end  of  the  term  the  lien  will  attach.^s  Where 
the  statute  requires  the  lease  to  be  in  writing  as  a  condition 
precedent,  as  a  matter  of  course  the  lien  will  not  attach  if  the 
lease  is  not  written.^^ 


Illinois. — Gardner  v.  Watson, 
18  in.  App.  386;  Watson  v.  Gard- 
ner, 119  111.  312,  10  N.  E.  192; 
Chicago  Smokeless  Fuel  Gas  Co. 
V.  Lyman,  62  111.  App.  538. 

Kansas. — Hathaway  v.  Davis,  32 
Kan.    693,    5    Pac.    29. 

Oklahoma. — Jarrell  v.  Block 
(Okla.),   92   Pac.    167. 

West  Virginia — Showalter  v. 
Lowndes,  56  W.  Va.  462,  49  S.  E. 
448.  Oil  or  gas  well — Eastern 
Ohio  Oil  Co.  V.  McElroy,  75  Kan. 
515,  89  Pac.  1048;  Phillips  v. 
Springfield  Crude  Oil  Co.,  76  Kan. 
783,  92  Pac.  1119.  See  Dec.  Dig. 
Leaseholds,  §  20. 

22  Benjamin  v.  Wilson,  34  Minn. 
517,  26  N.  W.  725;  Haworth  v. 
Wallace,    14    Pa.    (2    Harris)    118. 

Lessee  of  scliool  land — Owner. 
—Block  V.  Pearson  (Okla.),  91 
Pac.   714. 

23  Deatherage  v.  Sheidley,  50 
Mo.  App.  490. 

24  O'Brien  v.  Meyer  (Sup.  Ct. 
Con.),  9  Wkly.  Law  Bui.  337,  8 
Ohio    Dec.    777. 

23  Gaule  V.  Bilyeau,  25  Pa.  521. 


2'5  Daniel  v.  Weaver,  73  Tenn. 
(5  Lea.)   392. 

2"  Jones  V.  Carey-L  o  m  b  a  r  d 
Lumber  Co.,  87  111.  App.  533; 
Crutcher  v.  Block  (Okla.),  91  Pac. 
895. 

2S  Zabriskie  v.  Greater  America 
Exposition  Co.,  67  Neb.  581,  93 
N.    W.    958. 

Lessor  not  owner. — The  lessor 
in  a  lease  which  provides  that 
certain  repairs  shall  be  made  by 
lessee,  and  the  cost  deducted  from 
rent,  is  not  the  owner,  as  regards 
persons  employed  by  lessee.  Car- 
ing V.   Hunt,   27   Ont.   149. 

29  Executory  contract. — Where 
lands  are  sold  under  an  execu- 
tory contract  which  provides  that 
the  agreement  may  be  avoided  on 
the  failure  of  the  vendee  to  make 
certain  payments,  and  the  vendee 
has  a  building  erected  thereon 
with  the  consent  of  the  vendor, 
and  the  contract  of  sale  is  for- 
feited, the  contractor  erecting  the 
building  is  entitled  to  a  me- 
chanic's lien  on  the  property. 
Beck    V.    Catholic    University,    67 


27  INTEREST   OR   ESTATE   LIABLE  TO   LIEN.  [§11 

N.  Y.  Supp.  305,  also  306,  32  Misc.  in  any  manner  affect  the  lessor  of 
(N.  Y.)  567;  Dame's  Appeal,  62  said  premises  or  his  lien  on  the 
Pa.  St.  417.  interest  of  the  lessee  for  payment 
UnaTailing  stipulation. — A  pro-  of  rent,"  was  unavailing  to  pre- 
vision in  a  99-year  lease  "that  it  vent  the  lessor's  interest  being 
is  agreed  and  notice  is  hereby  made  subject  to  a  mechanic's  lien, 
given  that  no  transfer,  assign-  Provost  v.  Skirk,  223  111.  468,  79 
ment,  mortgage,  judgment,  me-  N.  E.  178. 
chanic's   lien,  or  other  lien  shall 


CHAPTER  2. 


CONDITIONS   GIVING   RIGHT   TO   A    LIEN. 


Sec. 

12.  Character  of  "building,"  "re- 
pair," etc.,  giving  a  lien. 

13.  Character  of  "building,"  "re- 
pair," etc.,  giving  a  lien. — 
Continued. 

14.  Character  of  "building,"  fix- 
tures. 

15.  Character  of  "building." — Ap- 
purtenances. 

16.  Kind  of  services  giving  a  lien. 

17.  Kind  of  services  on  building. 

18.  Kind  of  ■  material  giving  a 
lien. 

19.  Kind  of  material  used  in 
building. 

20.  Kind  of  material  furnished  on 
credit  of  building. 

21.  Intent  with  which  services 
are  rendered  or  materials 
furnished. 

22.  Intent,  on  particular  building. 

23.  Penalty  for  wrongful  use  of 
material — Ohio   statute. 

24.  Contract,   necessity  for. 

25.  Contract,  necessity  for — Con- 
tinued. 

26.  Contract  with  owner. 

27.  Contract  with  owner — Con- 
tinued. 

28.  "Who  is  owner — Ohio  statute. 

29.  Capacity  to  contract. 

30.  Contract — Authority  to   make. 

31.  Contract — Authority  to  make 
— Continued. 

32.  Sufficiency  of  contract. 

33.  Contract,  necessity  for  writ- 
ten. 

34.  Contract — Terms  and  times  of 
payment. 

35.  Contract — Express  or  implied 
— Estoppel. 

36.  Contract — Express  or  implied 
— Improvements. 


Sec. 

37.  Contract — Express  or  implied 
— Wife's   property. 

38.  Contract  with  married  women 
— Executor's  right — Ohio  stat- 
ute. 

39.  Contract  with  married  women 
— Continued. 

40.  Contract — Ratification. 

41.  Contract — Filing  notice. 

42.  Notice  from  owner  to  prevent 
lien. 

43.  Persons  entitled  to  lien  by 
direct  contract. 

44.  Contractor's  lien — Ohio  stat- 
ute. 

45.  Contractor's  and  sub-contrac- 
tor's   lien — Indiana    statute. 

46.  Claim  for  wages  —  Indiana 
statute. 

47.  Material  men  entitled  to  lien 
by   direct  contract. 

48.  Contractors — Who  are. 

49.  Contractors — Performance  of 
contract. 

50.  Remedy  where  owner  sus- 
pends  woi'k — Ohio  statute. 

51.  Construction  of  statute. 

52.  Construction  of  statute — • 
Rights    of    sub-contractor. 

53.  Lien  to  person  not  under  di- 
rect contract  with  owner. 

54.  Different  systems  for  liens  to 
persons  not  under  direct  con- 
tract. 

55.  Contract,  where  lien  is  not 
under  direct  contract  with 
owner, 

56.  Contract — Notice  to  owner. 

57.  Contracts — Stipulations  affect- 
ing rights  of  sub-contractors. 

58.  Persons  entitled  to  lien  as 
subcontractors. 


(28) 


29 


CHARACTER   OF    BUILDING    GIVING    LIEN. 


[§12 


Sec. 

59.  Sub-contractor's  lien  on  fund 
— Ohio  statute. 

60.  Sub-contractor's  lien  —  Obio 
statute — Who  may  acquire — 
Character  of  structure. 

61.  Sub-contractor's  lien  —  Ohio 
statute — Character  of  work — 
Contract. 

62.  Sub-contractor's  lien  —  Ohio 
statute — Procedure. 

63.  Sub-contractor's  lien  —  Ohio 
statute — Form  of  lien  state- 
ment. 

64.  Performance  of  principal  con- 
tract as  affecting  those  not 
under  direct  contract  with  the 
owner. 

65.  Performance  of  principal  con- 


Sec. 

tract  as  affecting  sub-con- 
tractors— Stipulations  in  con- 
tract. 

66.  Matters  affecting  rights  of 
those  not  under  direct  con- 
tract with  the  owner. 

67.  Payment  to  principal  contrac- 
tor, as  affecting  those  not  un- 
der direct  contract  with  the 
owner. 

68.  Advance  and  premature  pay- 
ments as  affecting  persons 
not  under   direct  contract. 

69.  Wrongful  payment  by  owner 
— Ohio    statute. 

70.  Wrongful  payment  by  owner 
— Ohio  statute — What  are  ad- 
vance  payments. 


§  12.     Character  of  "building,"  "repair,"  etc.,  giving  a  lien. — 

In  the  previous  sections  we  have  considered  the  general  nature 
of  the  lien/  the  persons  entitled  to  such  a  lien,  and  the  prop- 
erty subject  thereto.-  We  now  come  to  consider  what  con- 
ditions are  necessary  to  give  a  right  to  a  lien.  Here  as  else- 
where the  statute  must  be  consulted  in  determining  whether 
or  not  the  building  or  improvement  for  which  the  lien  is 
claimed  comes  within  the  statute.  It  is  a  general  rule  that 
in  order  that  the  building  improvement  may  be  such  as 
to  give  the  right  to  a  lien  thereon,  it  must  be  something 
which  becomes  a  part  of  the  real  estate  upon  which  it  is  lo- 
cated.^    The  real  estate  is  made  liable  on  the  theory  that  the 


1  §§  1-8. 

2  §11. 

3  Georgia, — Schofield  &  Son  v. 
Stout,  Mills  Temple,  59  Ga.  537; 
Evans  v.  Beddingfield,  106  Ga. 
755,   32   S.  E.   664. 

Illinois. — Cox  v.  Colles,  17  111. 
App.   (17  Bradw.)   503. 

Maine. — Baker  v.  Fessenden,  71 
Me.  292,  65  Me.  162. 

Massachusetts. — K  e  1  1  e  y    v. 


Border  City  Mills,  126  Mass.  148; 
Turner  v.  Wentworth,  119  Mass. 
459. 

New  Hampshire. — T  h  o  m  p- 
son  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Smith,  67  N.  H. 
409,  29  Atl.  405,  68  Am.  St.  Rep. 
679. 

Pennsylrania. — Dickey's  Appeal, 
115  Pa.  73,  7  Atl.  577;  Haslett  v. 
Gillespie,  95  Pa.  371. 

Washington. — Vendome  Turkish 


121 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


30 


material  or  labor  for  which  the  lien  is  claimed  adds  some  value 
to  the  land.-*  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  building  should  be 
a  new  building,^''  or  one  that  is  finished.^  Ordinarily  the 
structure  must  stand  upon  the  land  upon  which  the  lien  is 
claimed."^  But  if  the  statute  so  provides  there  may  be  a  lien 
for  other  services,  such  as  dredging,  etc.^  It  has  been  held 
that  an  electric  lighting  apparatus,  railway  and  power  house 
are  not  included  in  the  term  "house"  or  "structure,"^  and  that 
the  word  "building"  does  not  include  fences  and  gates. ^"^     The 


Bath  Co.  V.  Schettler,  2  Wash. 
St.  457,  27  Pac.  76;  Kellog  v.  Lit- 
tle, 1  "Wash.  407,  25  Pac.  461. 

United  States. — Greenwood,  &c., 
Ry.  V.  Strang  (C.  C),  77  Fed. 
498.  See  Dec.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,   §   23. 

4  Coddington  v.  Dry  Dock  Co., 
2  Vroom  (N.  J.)  489;  Campbell 
V.  John  Taylor  Mfg.  Co.,  62  N.  J. 
Eq.  307;  DeWald  v.  Woog,  158 
Pa.  497,  499;  Parrish's  Appeal, 
83  Pa.  Ill;  Holzhour  v.  Meer,  59 
Mo.  436. 

5  Reilly  v.  Hudson,  62  Mo.  383; 
White  V.  Chaffin,  32  Ark.  59. 

G  Completed  Structure.  —  De- 
fendant completed  a  pipe  line  and 
then  planned  to  construct  a  canal, 
of  six  times  greater  capacity,  to 
run  from  the  river  to  the  head 
waters  of  the  pipe  line,  and  then 
to  follow  the  line  of  the  pipe  line 
for  a  considerable  distance,  after 
which  he  intended  to  take  up  the 
pipe  line,  but  he  constructed  the 
canal  only  to  said  head  waters. 
The  canal,  as  built,  was  a  com- 
pleted structure,  within  Code  Civ. 
Prov.  1183,  entitling  a  furnisher 
of  materials  therefor  to  a  me- 
chanic's lien  thereon  without 
claiming  a  lien  on  the  pipe  line. 


Pacific  Rolling-Mill  Co.  v.  Bear 
Val.  Irr.  Co.,  120  Cal.  94,  52  Pac. 
136. 

"  Coddington  v.  Beebe,  31,  2 
Vroom  (N.  J.  L.)  477.  See  Dec. 
Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  24. 

s  Williams  v.  Lane,  87  Wis.  152, 
58  N.  W.  77.  Sec.  44,  Ohio  Statute 
as    to    Ditches. 

9  Industrial  &  Mining  Guaranty 
Co.  V.  Electrical  Supply  Co.,  58 
Fed.  732,  7  C.  C.  A.  471,  16  U.  S. 
App.  196;  Bates  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Trenton  &  N.  B.  R.  Co.,  70  N.  J. 
L.   684,  58  Atl.  935. 

10  Building:  defined. — The  word 
"building"  cannot  be  held  to  in- 
clude every  species  of  erection  on 
land,  such  as  fences,  gates  or 
other  like  structures.  Taken  in  its 
broadest  sense  it  can  mean  only 
an  erection  intended  for  use  and 
occupation  as  a  habitation  or 
some  purpose  of  trade,  manufac- 
ture, ornament  or  use,  constitut- 
ing a  fabric  or  edifice,  such  as  a 
house,  a  store,  a  church,  a  shed. 
That  the  word  building  was  used 
in  this  sense  in  the  statutes  abova 
cited,  and  did  not  comprehend 
every  species  of  erection  on  land, 
is  strongly  implied  by  St.  1885,  c. 
431,    in    which    the    word    "struc- 


31 


CHARACTER   OF    BUILDING    GIVING    LIEN. 


[§12 


word  "structure"  includes  a  building, ^i  and  an  oil  well  ;^2  but  a 
vessel/^  a  cook  oven/'*  a  lime  kiln/^  and  a  bridge  are  not  com- 
prehended within  the  term  "building"  or  "structure. "^^  Neither 
is  a  ditch,*'^  nor  a  swing,*^  nor  a  railroad  bridge,  a  "dwelling 
house"  or  "building,"^^  although  the  latter  might  be  included 
in  the  term  "other  structure. "^^  A  smelter  comes  with- 
in the  term  "mill"  or  "manufactory, "21  and  a  wind 
mill  is  an  "improvement, "^^  or  "appurtenance. "^^  Un- 
der some  statutes  wharf  boats.^-*  and  floating  docks  have 
been  held  subject  to  a  lien,^^  and  even  poles  set  in  the  ground  and 
wires  suspended  for  transmission  of  electricity  have  been  said 
to  come  within  the  term  "structure. "^^  A  mine  or  pit  sunk  in 
a  mining  claim,^'^  and  a  boiler  house,  forming  part  of  a  plant 
of  an  oil  mill  were  held  to  come  within  the  term  "buildinof."^^ 


ture"  is  added  to  the  word  "build- 
ing," in  giving  a  lien  for  labor 
and  materials.  Truesdell  v.  Gay, 
13  Gray   (Mass.)   312. 

11  Collins  V.  Drew,  6  Daly  234, 
affirmed  (1876)  67  N.  Y.  149. 

12  Showalter  v.  Lowndes,  56  W. 
Va.  462,  49   S.  E.   448. 

13  Stewart  v.  Gorgoza  (U.  S.), 
3  Hughes  459,  Fed  Gas.  No.  13, 
428. 

14  Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Cameron 
Iron  &  Coal  Co.,  47  Fed.  136. 

15  Cowdrick  v.  Morris  (Com. 
PI.)    9   Pa.  C.  C.   R.   312. 

16  Burt  V.  Washington,  3  Gal. 
246;  Pike  County  Com'rs  v.  Nor- 
rington,  82  Ind.  190;  Rutherford 
V.  Cincinnati  &  P.  R.  Co.,  35  Ohio 
St.    559. 

17  Ellison  V.  Jackson  Water  Co., 
12   Gal.    542. 

18  Lothian  v.  Wood,  55  Cal.  159. 

19  La  Crosse  &  M.  R.  Co.  v. 
Vanderpool,  11  Wis.  119,  78  Am. 
Dec.    691. 


20  Ban  V.  Columbia  Southern 
Ry.  Co.,  117  Fed  21,  54  C.  C.  A. 
407. 

21  McAllister  v.  Benson  Mining 
&  Smelting  Co.,  2  Ariz.  350,  16 
Pac.   271. 

22  Phelps  &  Bigelow  Windmill 
Co.  V.  Baker,  49  Kan.  434,  30  Pac. 
472. 

23  Phelps  &  Bigelow  Windmill 
V.  Shay,  32  Neb.  19,  48  N.  W. 
896. 

2-i  Galbreath  v.  Davidson,  25 
Ark.  490,  99  Am.  Dec.  233;  Burt 
V.  Washington,  3  Gal.  246;  Olm- 
stead  v.  McNall,  7  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
387. 

25  Coddington  v.  Beebe,  31,  2 
Vroom    (N.   J.  L.)    477. 

26  Forbes  v.  Willamette  Falls 
Electric  Co.,  19  Ore.  61,  23  Pac. 
670,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  793. 

27  Helm  V.  Chapman,  66  Gal. 
291,  5  Pac.  352. 

28  Short  v.  Miller,  120  Pa.  470, 
14   Atl.   374. 


12] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


32 


So  does  a  railroad  depot.-^  To  come  within  the  meaning  of 
an  "appurtenance,"  it  must  be  an  appurtenance  to  the  land 
upon  which  the  improvement  is  made  and  not  an  appurte- 
nance to  some  other  structure.^^  A  remodeled  building  comes 
within  the  term  "erected  and  constructed  ;"2^  but  adding  a 
basement,22  or  a  bath  room,^^  qj-  g.  door,  does  not.^^  Where 
an  old  building  is  substituted  in  place  of  another,  it  is  not  a 
"new  erection. "^-^  A  lien  will  not  lie  if  the  building  has  lost 
its  identity.^*^  However,  a  new  wing  added  to  a  building  has 
been  held  to  be  an  "erection,"37  as  well  as  a  kitchen,^^  and  a 
boiler  battery  on  a  stone  foundation.^^  An  oil  tank  is  not  a 
"building."'*"^  Where  the  frame  of  an  old  building  is  neither 
raised  nor  enlarged,  but  merely  new  machinery  put  in,  it  is 
not  a  "new  structure."'*^  In  order  for  repair  work  to  be  in- 
cluded it  must  be  repair  upon  some  part  of  the  realty,  not  on 
personal  property.'*^  Putting  in  folding  doors  has  been  held 
an  "alteration"  and  not  a  "repair."-^^     Raising  a  house  is  "re- 


29  Hill  V.  La  Crosse  &  M.  R.  Co., 
11   Wis.   223. 

30  H.  F.  Cady  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Greater  America  Exposition  Co. 
(Neb.),  93  N.  W.  961. 

sijfew  Jersey. — Combs  v.  Lip- 
pincott,  35,  6  Vroom  (N.  J.  L.) 
481. 

Peiinsylvauia. — In  re  Burling's 
Estate,  1  Ashm.  (Pa.)  377;  Perigo 
V.  Van  Horn,  2  Miles  (Pa.)  359; 
In  re  Hill's  Estate,  2  Clark  (Pa.) 
96,   3  Pa.  Law  J.  323. 

Driesbach  v.  Keller,  2  Pa.  St. 
77;  Armstrong  v.  Ware,  20  Pa. 
St.  519;  Grable  v.  Helman,  5  Pa. 
Super  Ct.  324,  28  Pittsb.  Leg.  J. 
(N.  S.)  40,  40  W.  N.  C.  466. 

32  Miller  v.  Oliver,  8  Watts 
(Pa.)  514;  In  re  Burling's  Estate, 
1  Ashm.  (Pa.)  377. 

33  Rand  V.  Mann,  3  Phila.  (Pa.) 
429. 


3^  Patterson  v.  Frazier,  123  Pa. 
414;   16  Atl.  477,   23  W.  N.  C.  143. 

33  Summerville  v.  Wann,  37 
Pa.    (1  Wright)   182. 

3G  In  re  Sabbaton's  Estates,  2 
Am.  Law  J.   (Pa.)   83. 

3  7  Harman  v.  Cummings,  43 
Pa.   (7  Wright)  322. 

ssHershey  v.  Shenk,  58  Pa.  (8 
P.  F.  Smith)  382;  Miller  v.  Her- 
shey,  59  Pa.   (P.  F.  Smith)   64. 

39  Wheeler  v.  Pierce,  167  Pa. 
416,    31  Atl.  649,    46  Am.   St.  679. 

•i'^  Seiders  &  Co.  International 
Boiler  Works  v.  Lewis  &  Bros. 
Co.,  21  Pa.  C.  C.  R.  80,  7  Pa.  Dist. 
R.  278. 

■11  Summei'ville  v.  Wann,  37  Pa. 
St.  182. 

42  Curnew  v.  Lee,  143  Mass. 
105,  8  N.  E.  890;  see  Dec.  Dig. 
Improvement,  etc.,  §  26. 

•13  Whitenack   v.   Noe,    11   N.    J. 


33 


CHARACTER  OF   BUILDING,   REPAIR,   ALTERATION. 


[§12 


pairing"  it.^^  Putting-  an  additional  story  on  a  building  is 
an  "alteration,"'*'^  so  is  attaching  wainscoting.'*^  The  term 
"improvement"  will  include  papering  and  decorating  a  house, '^'^ 
painting  and  glazing,-*^  putting  up  a  lightning  rod,"*^  and  put- 
ting in  tanks  and  sheet-iron  floors.^*^     The  term  also  covers  the 


Eq.  413;  Hershey  v.  Shenk,  58  Pa. 
St.  382;  Patterson  v.  Frazier,  123 
Pa.  414,  16  Atl.  477,  23  W.  N.  C. 
143. 

What  constitutes  repair. — 
Where  the  interior  of  a  build- 
ing was  torn  out  by  the 
tenant,  and  materially  changed 
and  the  front  altered  to  some  ex- 
tent, but  the  tenant  continued  to 
occupy  the  building  throughout 
the  work,  it  constituted  repairs 
of  an  old  building,  and  entitled 
the  contractor  therefor  to  a  lien. 
De  Wald  v.  Woog,  158  Pa.  497,  27 
Atl.  1088.  The  Mississippi  Act  of 
1838  did  not  give  a  lien.  Kirk  v. 
Taliaferro,  16  Miss.  (8  Sm.  &  M.) 
754;  Warren  v.  Freeman,  187  Pa. 
St.  455,  41  Atl.  290,  43  W.  N.  C. 
131;  Whitenack  v.  Noe,  11  N.  J. 
Eq.    (3  Stockt.)    413. 

44  Rhodes  V.  Webb-Jameson  Co., 
19    Ind.    App.    195,    49    N.    E.    283. 

Sufficient  evidence  of  erection. 
— Where  the  right  to  a  mechanic's 
lien  for  the  "erection"  of  a  house 
was  disputed  on  the  ground  that 
the  work  in  question  was  done 
in  "the  alteration  and  repair  of 
an  old  house,"  evidence  that  the 
roof  and  three  sides  of  the  build- 
ing were  removed,  and  an  addition 
erected  on  one  side,  a  kitchen  in 
the  rear,  and  a  porch  in  the 
front,  with  new  roof,  new  parti- 
tions, and  new  ceiling  joints,  sup- 
ported a  finding  that  such  work 
was  performed,  in  "the  erection 
3 


of  a  dwelling  house."  Ward  v. 
Crane,  118  Cal.   676,  50  Pac.  839. 

What  is  alteration. — Where  the 
main  design  of  a  building  re- 
mains unchanged,  and  the  lines  of 
its  foundation  walls  are  in  no  re- 
spect altered,  and  the  interior, 
except  for  certain  bay  windows, 
is  left  untouched,  the  court,  in 
proceedings  for  mechanic's  lien, 
will  not  construe  the  building  to 
be  a  new  building,  though  the  ex- 
ternal appearance  has  been 
changed  by  an  alteration  in  the 
roof  and  by  repainting.  Goerin- 
ger  V.  Schappert,  17  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  283. 

45  Updike  V.  Skillman,  27,  3 
Dutch  (N.  J.  L.)  131;  Chester  City 
Presbyterian  Church  v.  Conlin,  19 
Pa.  Super  Ct.  515;  Smyers  v. 
Beam,  158  Pa.  57,  27  Atl.  884. 

40  Matthiesen  v.  Ai'ata,  32  Ore. 
342,  50  Pac.  1015. 

47  La  Grille  v.  Mallard,  90  Cal. 
373,  27  Pac.  294;  Freeman  v.  Gil- 
pin, 7  Leg.  Int.   (Pa.)   11. 

48  France  v.  Woolston,  4  Houst. 
(Del.)  557. 

40  France  v.  Woolston,  4  Houst. 
(Del.)  557.  But  in  another  state, 
it  was  held  not  within  the  law. 
Drew  V.  Mason,  81  111.  498,  25 
Am.  Rep.  288.  And  in  another 
case  it  was  held  a  question  for 
the  jury.  Barber  v.  Roth,  11  York 
Leg.  Rec.  (Pa.  Com.  PL)  11. 

si^  O'Brien  v.  Hanson,  9  Mo. 
App.  545. 


§12] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


34 


furnishing  of  lumber  for  the  purpose  of  building  an  office,  put- 
ting in  floors,  etc.^^  But  the  term  "improvement"  will  not 
cover  personalty  that  can  be  removed,^^  ^or  upholstering,^^ 
nor  scenery  in  an  opera  house. ^^  When  a  lien  is  given  for 
making  an  "improvement"  and  such  lien  has  priority  over  a 
mortgage,  the  term  "improvement"  means  an  "independent 
structure. "°^ 

§  13.  Character  of  "building,"  "repair,"  etc.,  giving  a  lien 
(continued). — Moving  a  building  is  neither  an  "erection, "^  nor 
a  "repair. "2  Improvement  includes  repairs  under  statute.  A 
tearing  down  is  not  an  "improvement."^  But  moving 
a  building  has  been  included  in  the  terms  "altera- 
tion and  repair."^     Tools  used  in  moving  or  "repairing  and 


51  National  Life  Insurance  Co. 
V.  Ayres,  111  Iowa,  201,  82  N.  W. 
607. 

52  Koenig  v.  Mueller,  39  Mo. 
165;  Mosher  v.  Lewis  (Com.  PI) 
31  N.  Y.  Supp.  433,  10  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)    373. 

53  McCarty  v.  Buck,  8  Houst. 
(Del.)    34,  12  Atl.   717. 

54  Harris  v.  Schultz,  64  Iowa, 
539,  21  N.  W.  22.  A  scenic  artist 
is  not  a  mechanic,  laborer,  or 
other  person  who  performs  la- 
bor. Query — Is  movable  scenery, 
etc.,  of  a  theater  part  of  a  free- 
hold? Garring  v.  Hunt,  27  Ont. 
149. 

55  Getchell  v.  Allen,  34  Iowa 
559. 

1  Trask  v.  Searle,  21  Mass.  229; 
Eichleay  v.  Wilson,  29  Pittsb.  Leg. 
J.  (N.  S.)  50.  See  Dec.  Dig.  tit 
JMechanics'  Liens,  §  27. 

2  Stephens  v.  Holmes,  64  111. 
336;  Eichleay  v.  Wilson,  29  Pittsb. 
Leg.  J.  (N.  S.)  50  (Pa.  Super.  Ct.) ; 
Improvement      includes      repairs 


under  statute;  Aetna  Elevator  Co. 
V.  Deeves,  56  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  563, 
107  N.  Y.  Supp.  63,  rehearing  de- 
nied, 108  N.  Y.  Supp.  57  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  632,  718,  and  judgment  af- 
firmed, 110  N.  Y.  Supp.  124. 
3  Holzhour  V.  Meer,  59  Mo.  434. 
As  an  ImproTenient. — The  second 
story  and  porch  of  a  building 
were  torn  away  in  order  that  the 
building  might  be  remodeled  or 
repaired  to  suit  the  purposes  of 
the  owner.  Held,  that  although 
there  could  be  no  lien,  under  the 
mechanics'  lien  law,  simply  for 
tearing  away  a  structure  from 
land,  a  lien  for  the  improvement 
might  include  the  charges  for 
such  removal,  as  a  necessary  part 
of  the  improvement.  Bruns  v. 
Braun,  35  Mo.  App.  337.  Putting 
on  gutters  is  within  law.  Isler 
V.  Dixon,  140  N.  Car.  529,  53  S.  E. 
348. 

■i  Allen  V.  Elwert,  29  Ore.  428, 
44  Pac.  823;  Palmer  v.  Lavigne, 
104  Cal.  30,  37  Pac.  775. 


35 


CHARACTER  OF  BUILDING,  REPAIRS,  ALTERATION.  [§  12 


building"  cannot,  especially  in  the  absence  of  statute,^  be  made 
subject  to  a  lien,*^  but  old  material  used  in  a  new  building 
may  be  subject  to  a  lien.'^  A  lien  is  not  given  for  such  serv- 
ices as  taking  down  fixtures,^  or  removing  portable  engines.^ 
Excavations  and  foundations  are  generally  included  in  the 
term  "building."^^  And  this  has  been  held  to  be  true  even 
though  no  building  thereon  was  ever  erected. ^^  Digging  a 
well  does  not  come  within  the  ordinary  terms  of  "building 
or  structure,"  and  in  order  to  be  included,  the  statute  must 
expressly  so  provide.^-  In  one  case,  however,  it  was  held  to 
be  included  within  the  term  "structure, "^^  and  in  another  the 
well  was  held  to  be  an  appurtenance  where  it  was  intended 
to  supply  water  to  the  main  building.^^     It  has  been  held  to 


5  Burke  v.  Brown,  10  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  298,  30  S.  W.  936. 

6  Allen  V.  Elwert,  29  Ore.,  428, 
44  Pac.  823. 

7  Whltford  V.  Newall,  2  Allen 
(84  Mass.)   424. 

8  They  are  mere  personal  prop- 
erty. A.  F.  Engelhardt  Co.  v. 
Benjamin,  5  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  475, 
39  N.  Y.  Supp.  31. 

9  Truxall  v.  Williams,  15  Lea 
(83  Tenn.)  427. 

10  Scott  V.  Goldinhorst,  123  Ind. 
268,  24  N.  E.  333;  McCristal  v. 
Cochran,  147  Pa.  225,  23  Atl.  444, 
29  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  340';  Florin  v. 
Mclntire  (Com.  PL),  14  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  127;  Thompson  v.  Porter 
(Com.  PI.),  14  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  232. 
See  Dec.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,  §  28. 

11  Baker  v.  Waldron,  92  Me.  17, 
42  Atl.  225;  Sommerville  v.  Walk- 
er, 168  Mass.  388.  The  right  to 
a  lien  does  not  depend  upon  the 
size  or  shape  of  the  excavation, 
but  upon  the  purpose  for  which 
it   is   made.     If   it   was   made   in 


digging  a  cellar  under  a  building, 
opening  or  constructing  a  mine, 
or  other  similar  purpose,  these 
might  well  be  considered  acts 
done  in  making  improvements 
upon  the  land,  for  which  the  par- 
ty performing  the  labor  would 
have  a  lien.  The  same  would  be 
true  of  the  labor  performed  in 
"stripping"  a  mine  preparatory 
to  getting  out  the  ore,  which  was 
the  case  in  Kinney  v.  Duluth  Ore 
Co.,  58  Minn.  455,  60  N.  W.  23; 
Colvin  V.  Weimer,  64  Minn.  39. 

12  Guise  V.  Oliver,  51  Ark.  356, 
11  S.  W.  515;  Colvin  v.  Weimer, 
64  Minn.  37,  65  N.  W.  1079. 

13  Haskell  v.  Gallagher,  20 
Ind.  App.  224,  50  N.  E.  485. 

14  Phelps  &  Bigelow  Windmill 
Co.  V.  Shay,  32  Neb.  19,  48  N.  W. 
896. 

Tabular  well. — Under  Comp. 
St.  c.  54,  §  1,  giving  a  mechanic's 
lien  to  persons  who  "perform  la- 
bor or  furnish  any  materials  or 
machinery  or  fixtures  for  the 
erection   of   any   building  or   ap- 


13] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


36 


be  an  ''improvement. "i-"'  Generally  the  statutes  do  not  cover 
such  work  as  filling,  grading  or  sodding  about  buildings  al- 
ready erected/*^'  unless  it  is  included  in  the  contract  for  the 
erection  of  the  building.^"  But  the  New  York  courts  have  held 
that  there  may  be  a  lien  for  grading  where  the  statute  gives 
a  lien  for  altering  or  repairing  a  "building,"  or  "building  lot,"^^ 
even  where  there  is  no  building  on  the  lot.^^  In  the  absence 
of  statute  there  is  no  lien  for  the  breaking  of  land  for  the 
purposes  of  cultivation.^o  A  lien  cannot  be  had  on  one  build- 
ing for  work  done  on  another  building  unless  the  one  be  ap- 
purtenant to  the  other,  and  all  used  as  one  common  plant,  and 
so  connected  as  to  in  fact  constitute  but  one  building.^i 


purtenance,"  an  account  for  la- 
bor performed  and  material  fur- 
nished in  sinking  a  tubular  well 
cannot  be  the  foundation  for  a 
claim  for  a  mechanic's  lien. 
Omaha  Consol.  Vinegar  Co.  v. 
Burns,  49  Neb.  229,  68  N.  W.  492. 

15  Bates  V.  Harte,  124  Ala.  427, 
26  So.  898;  Hoppes  v.  Bale,  105 
Iowa  648,  75  N.  W.  495;  National 
Home  Building  &  Loan  Assn.  v. 
McAllister,  64  111.  App.  143. 

ImprOTeineut. — The  statute  rec- 
ognizes that  improvements  merit- 
ing the  protection  of  a  lien  may 
be  made  upon  land  otherwise 
than  by  buildings,  but,  as  they 
may  occur  in  unforeseen  variety, 
the  scope  of  the  term  "improve- 
ment" is  left  for  determination  in 
particular  cases  as  they  may 
arise.  It  is  well  known  that  a 
supply  of  water  is  often  one  of 
the  most  convenient  and  useful  of 
all  appurtenances  to  land.  Its  de- 
velopment by  means  of  drilling 
and  casing  a  well  may  greatly 
enhance  the  permanent  value  of 
the  land.    We  therefore  hold  that 


a  well  designed  and  made  for  a 
permanent  supply  of  water  is  an 
improvement  upon  land,  within 
the  meaning  of  the  statute  re- 
ferred to.  Bates  v.  Harte,  124 
Ala.  427,  26  So.  898. 

16  Pratt  V.  Duncan,  36  Minn. 
545,  32  N.  W.  709,  1  Am.  St.  697; 
Williams,  Belser  &  Co.  v.  Rowell, 
145  Cal.  259,  78  Pac.  725;  Missouri 
Val.  Cut  Stone  Works  v.  Brown, 
50  Mo.  App.  407;  Willamette  Falls 
Transp.  &  Mill  Co.  v.  Remick,  1 
Ore.  169;  Account  of  Ermentrout, 
1  Woodw.  Dec.   (Pa.),  158. 

1"  Henry  v.  Plitt,  84  Mo.  237. 

18  Raven  v.  Smith,  71  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  197,  24  N.  Y.  Supp.  601;  Pick- 
ett V.  Gollner  (City  Ct.  Brook.), 
7  N.  Y.  Supp.  196. 

19  Fredericks  v.  Goodman  St. 
Homestead  Assn.,  75  Hun  612,  29 
N.   Y.   Supp.   1041. 

20  Brown  v.  Wyman,  56  Iowa 
452,  9  N.  W.  344,  41  Am.  Rep. 
117;  Stichtenoth  v.  Rife,  6  Ohio 
Cir.    Ct.    540. 

21  Killingsworth  v.  Allen,  1 
Phila.   (Pa.)   220,  8  Leg.  Int.  126; 


37 


CHARACTER  OF  BUILDING,  ETC. FIXTURES. 


14 


§  14.  Character  of  "building" — Fixtures. — There  is  no 
mechanic's  lien  on  personal  property  unless  such  personal 
property  becomes  fixed  to  the  real  estate  or  otherwise  loses 
its  identity  and  becomes  a  part  of  the  real  estate.  It  is  not 
always  easy  to  determine  when  personal  property  becomes  a 
fixture.  Generally  it  may  be  said  that  personalty  becomes  a 
fixture  when  it  is  physically  annexed  to  realty,  and  is  adapted 
to  the  use  or  purpose  to  which  the  realty  is  devoted,  and  the 
person  making  the  annexation  intends  to  make  the  personalty 
a  permanent  accession  to  the  land.^^  The  term  "fixtures"  has 
been  held  to  include  stage  fixtures  and  scenery  ;23  chairs  of  a 
pattern  made  for  a  theater  ;24  store  shelves  placed  so  as  to 
conform  to  the  building,  and  nailed  to  the  Avail  -^^  a  flume 
constructed  of  wood  and  used  to  lead  water  to  a  mill  f^^  wires 
and  insulators  in  an  electric  lighting  plant  ;^'^  wires  for  light- 


McDonald  V.  Minneapolis  Lumber 
Co..  28  Minn.  262,  9  N.  W.  765. 

22  Rinzel  V.  Stumf,  116  Wis.  290; 
Nicholstone  City  Co.  v.  Smalley, 
21  Tex.  Civ.  App.  210,  51  S.  W. 
527;  Goodin  v.  Elleardsville  Hall 
Assn.,  5  Mo.  App.  289. 

Between  owner  and  furnisher. — 
"It  has  consequently  been  held 
as  between  the  owner  and  me- 
chanic, that  everything  put  into 
and  forming  a  part  of  a  building, 
or  machinery  for  manufacturing, 
is  a  part  of  the  freehold,  and  a 
fixture — as,  the  wheels  of  a  mill, 
the  stones,  and  even  the  bolting- 
cloth,  the  copper  kettle  of  a  brew 
house,  and  the  like.  Wademan  v. 
Thorp,  5  Watts  (Pa.)  115;  Mc- 
Creary  v.  Osborne,  9  Cal.  119." 
Grewar  v.  Alloway,  3  Tenn.  586. 
Wheels  and  Bo.xes. — Wheels  and 
boxes  designed  and  built  express- 
ly for  use  in  dry  kiln,  and  with- 
out which  the  dry  kiln  cannot  be 
used    without    altering    its    struc- 


ture, though  running  on  a  tram- 
way, and  not  actually  fastened 
thereto,  are  constructively  at- 
tached to,  and  a  part  of,  the 
building,  within  the  lien  law. 
Meek  v.  Parker,  63  Ark.  367,  38 
S.  W.  900. 

23  Sosman  v.  Conlon,  57  Mo. 
App.  25;  Halley  v.  Alloway,  78 
Tenn.  (10  Lea)  523;  Grewar  v. 
Alloway,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  584.  See 
Dec.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens,  § 
28. 

2i  Grosz  v.  Jackson,  6  Daly  (N. 
Y.)    463. 

25  Rinzel  v.  Stumf,  116  Wis.  287, 
93  N.  W.  36. 

26  Derrickson  v.  Edwards,  29 
N.  J.  L.  468,  80  Am.  Dec.  220. 

2"  Hughes  V.  Lambertville  Elec- 
tric Light,  Heat  &  Power  Co.,  53 
N.  J.  Eq.  (8  Dick.)  435,  32  Atl. 
69;  The  Badger  Lumber  Co.  v. 
The  Warren  Water  Supply  Co., 
48  Kan.  182. 


14] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


38 


ing  building  ■p'^  mirrors  set  in  a  wall  f^  but  not  where  held 
in  removable  frames.^s  A  tank  holding  250  barrels,  upon  a 
foundation  expressly  built  for  it,  is  subject  to  a  lien.'^'^  What 
are  known  as  trade  fixtures  are  personal  property  and  not 
subject  to  a  lien.'"i  A  stove  pipe  flue,^^  removable  partitions 
placed  in  a  hotel  by  a  lessee,  for  convenience,^^  tables  in  a  store 
building,"^'^  and  temporary  alterations  made  by  a  tenant  are  not 
subject  to  a  lien.^^  Hose  and  hose  racks  for  fire  protection 
may  also  be.^^*^  Whether  or  not  appurtenances  for  heat- 
ing, cooking,  lighting  and  water  supply  are  subject  to  a  lien 
depends  upon  the  question  whether  they  are  so  attached  as 
to  become  part  of  the  buildings;  if  they  are,  the  lien  will  at- 
tach.2*^  A  cooking  range  if  permanently  attached  will  be 
subject  to  a  lien,-^'  but  not  if  it  is  movable,^^  and  the  same 
rule    will    be    applied    to    furnaces.^^       But    a    small    portable 


27aRowen  V.  Alladio  (Ore.),  93 
Pac.  929. 

28  Ward  V.  Kilpatrick,  85  N.  Y. 
413,  39  Am.  Rep.  674;  McKeage 
V.  Hanover  Ins.  Co.,  81  N.  Y.  38. 

29  Vogel  V.  Farrand,  26  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)   130,  55  N.  Y.  Supp.  977. 

30  Parker  Land  &  Improvement 
Co.  V.  Reddick,  IS  Ind.  App.  616, 
47  N.  E.  848. 

31  Carroll  v.  Shooting  the 
Chutes  Co.,  85  Mo.  App.  563; 
O'Brien  Boiler  Works  Co.  v. 
Haydock,  59  Mo.  App.  653. 

32  Missoula  Mercantile  Co.  v. 
O'Donnal,  24  Mont.  65,  60  Pac. 
594. 

33  Hanson  v.  News  Publishing 
Co.,  97  Me.  99,  53  Atl.  990. 

34Rinzel  V.  Stumf,  116  Wis. 
287,  93  N.  W.  36;  Meek  v.  Parker, 
63  Ark.  367,  38  S.  W.  900. 

35  Hanson  v.  News  Publishing 
Co.,  97  Me.  99,  53  Atl.  990. 


35a  Crane  Co.  v.  Epworth  Hotel 
Construction  «&  Real  Estate  Co., 
121  Mo.  App.  209,  98  S.  W.  795. 

36  Lambard  v.  Pike,  33  Me.  141; 
Michael  v.  Reeves,  14  Colo.  App. 
460,  60  Pac.  577;  Union  Stove 
Works  V.  Klingham,  164  N.  Y.  589, 
58  N.  B.  1093;  Dimmick  v.  E.  H. 
Cook  Co.,  115  Pa.  573,  8  Atl.  627. 
See  Dec.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Lien, 
§3L 

3T  Schaper  v.  Bibb,  71  Md.  145, 
17  Atl.  935. 

38  Boston  Furnace  Co.  v.  Di- 
mock,  158  Mass.  552,  33  N.  E. 
647;  Michael  v.  Reeves,  14  Colo. 
App.  460,  60  Pac.  577;  Williams 
V.  Bower  (Com.  PI.),  11  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  (Pa.),  151.  Portable  heater. 
Elston  V.  Jury  (Com.  PL),  3  Lack. 
Jur.    (Pa.),   107. 

39  Goodin  v.  Elleardsville  Hall 
Assn.,  5  Mo.  App.  289;  Schwartz 
v.    Allen    (Super.    Buff.)    7    N.    Y. 


39 


CHARACTER  OF  BUILDING,  ETC. — FIXTURES. 


l§14 


laundry  stove,^^  even  though  in  the  original  contract,  will 
not  be.^^  So  a  stove  with  its  funnel, ^2  ^j^^j  g^  furnace  not 
fastened  down,^^  and  gas  fixtures,  as  distinguished  from  gas 
fittings,  are  not  subject  to  a  lien.^*  However,  gas  machines,^^ 
steam  heating  apparatus^*^  and  electric  lighting  plants  put  in 
houses  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  light,  become  part  of  the 
real  estate  and  are  subject  to  a  lien.^^  As  a  general  rule  ma- 
chinery not  connected  with,  and  forming  a  part  of  the  build- 
ing is  not  subject  to  the  lien,-!^  unless  attached  to  the  realty,^'^ 
in  which  event  it  may  attach  to  a  leasehold  interest. ^'^  A 
bolting  cloth  in  a  flouring  mill,^!  cloth  printing  machines,^^ 
brewery  appliances,^^  an  engine  with  a  steam  sawmill,^^  burr 


Supp.  5;  United  States  Nat.  Bank 
V.  Bonacum,  33  Neb.  820,  51  N. 
W.  233. 

40  Women's  Homeopathic  Assn. 
V.  Harrison,  120  Pa.  28,  13  Atl. 
501. 

41  Harrison  v.  Women's  Homeo- 
pathic Hospital  Assn.,  134  Pa. 
558,  19  Atl.  804,  19  Am.  St.  714, 
26  W.  N.  C.    (Pa.)   84. 

42  Lambard  v.  Pike,  33  Me.  141. 

43  Baldwin  v.  Merrick,  1  Mo. 
App.  281. 

44  Jarechi  v.  Philharmonic  Soc, 
79  Pa.  (29  P.  P.  Smith)  403.  21 
Am.  Rep.  78. 

45  Light  Co.  V.  Gill  (Com.  PI.), 
14  Pa.  Co.  Ct.   (Pa.)   6. 

4e  Stebbins  v.  Culbreth,  86  Md. 
656,  39  Atl.  321. 

47  Scannevin  &  Potter  v.  Con- 
solidated Mineral  Water  Co.,  25 
R.  I.  318,  55  Atl.  754;  Southern 
Elec.  Sup.  Co.  V.  Rolla,  75  Mo. 
App.  622;  Hughes  v.  Lambartville 
Elec.  L.,  53  N.  J.  Eq.  435;  Forbes 
V.  Willamette  Falls  Co.,  19  Ore. 
61. 


48  Beers  v.  Knapp,  5  Ben.  (U. 
S.)  104,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,232;  Has- 
kin  Wood-Vulcanizing  Co.  v. 
Cleveland  Shipbuilding  Co.,  94  Va. 
439,  26  S.  E.  878;  Hughes  v.  Heat 
Co.,  53  N.  J.  Eq.  435;  Griggs  v. 
Stone,  51  N.  J.  L.  552. 

49  Donahue  v.  Cromartie,  21 
Cal.  80;  Schofield  v.  Stout,  59  Ga. 
537;  Baker  v.  Fessenden,  71  Me. 
292;  Pond  Machine  Tool  Co.  v. 
Robinson,  38  Minn.  272,  37  N.  W. 
99;  Graves  v.  Pierce,  53  Mo.  423; 
Richardson  v.  Koch,  81  Mo.  264; 
Campbell  v.  John  Taylor  Mfg.  Co., 
62  N.  J.  Eq.  (17  Dick.)  307,  49 
Atl.  1119;  Campbell  v.  John  W. 
Taylor  Mfg.  Co.,  51  Atl.  723,  62 
N.  J.  Eq.  307. 

50  Dobschuetz  v.  Holliday,  82 
111.  371. 

51  Heidegger  v.  Atlantic  Milling 
Co.,  16  Mo.  App.  327. 

52  Griggs  v.  Stone,  51  N.  J.  L. 
549,   18   Atl.   1094,   7   L.   R.   A.   48. 

53  Watts-Campbell  Co.  v.  Yuen- 
gling,  125  N.  Y.  1,  25  N.  E.  1060. 

5  4  Morgan  v.  Arthurs,  3  Watts 
(Pa.)   140. 


§15] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


40 


millstones, "5^  engine  and  boilers  for  an  iron  furnace,^^  matte 
pots,  fire  hearths,  and  ore  cars  in  a  smelting  furnace,^'^  an  ice 
machine  and  engine  in  a  packing  plant,  are  subject  to  a  lien.^^ 
But  there  Avould  be  no  lien  for  selling  merely  detached  parts 
of  such  machinery .^9 

§  15.  Character  of  "building" — Appurtenances. — Ordinarily 
there  Can  be  no  lien  for  work  or  materials  furnished  on  im- 
provements outside  of  the  building,  unless  they  are  appurte- 


55  Wademan  v.  Thorp,  5  Watts 
(Pa.)   115. 

56  Appeal  of  Parish,  S3  Pa.  111. 
5"  Gary  Hardware  Co.  v.  McCar- 

ty,  10  Col.  App.  200,  50  Pac.   744. 

58  Nason  Ice-Mach.  Co.  v.  Up- 
ham,  50  N.  Y.  Supp.  197,  26  App. 
Div.  420;  Hooven,  Owens  &  Rent- 
schler  Co.  v.  John  Featherstone's 
Sons,  111  Fed.  81,  49  C.  C.  A.  229 
(U.  S.  C.  C.  A.  Mo.  1901). 

59  Loudon  V.  Coleman,  59  Ga., 
653. 

In  different  buildings. — The 
fact  that  the  several  parts  of  ma- 
chinery were  separated,  except 
for  the  roof  which  covered  them, 
will  not  affect  the  right  of  one 
furnishing  such  machinery  to  a 
lien,  where,  from  the  nature  of 
the  plant,  it  was  necessarily 
made  up  of  parts.  Progress 
Press-Brick  &  Machine  Co.  v.  Gra- 
tiot Brick  &  Quarry  Co.,  151  Mo. 
501,  52  S.  W.  401. 

Fixed  macliinerj-. — Under  the 
mechanics'  lien  act,  granting  a 
lien  for  the  price  of  fixed  machin- 
ery, a  lien  does  not  attach  for 
the  purchase  price  of  complete 
machines,  which  are  stayed  in 
their  places  merely  to  make  them 
steady,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of 
incorporating      them      into,      and 


making  them  part  of,  the  realty. 
Campbell  v.  John  W.  Taylor  Mfg. 
Co.,  64  N.  J.  Eq.  344,  54  Atl.  1123. 

Kind  included. — Everything  nec- 
essary to  put  in  motion  a  manu- 
factory, and  apply  its  power  to 
the  different  machines  used,  is 
machinery,  appurtenances,  or  fix- 
tures, within  Rev.  St.  3184,  giving 
persons  who  perform  labor  or  fur- 
nish machinery  for  erecting  a 
manufactory,  appurtenance  or  fix- 
tures under  contract  with  the 
owner,  a  lien  thereon,  and  on  the 
interest  of  the  owner  in  the  land 
on  which  the  same  may  stand. 
Gashe  v.  Ohio  Lumber  &  Mfg. 
Co.  (Ohio  Prob.  Ct.),  31  W.  L. 
Bull.  189,  5  Ohio  S.  &  C.  P.  Dec. 
130. 

Where  common  law  lien. — The 
purpose  of  Revision,  p.  669,  is  to 
afford  mechanics  a  lien  on  ma- 
chinery, of  which  they  could  have 
such  possession  as  would  give 
them  a  lien  by  the  common  law; 
hence,  where  machinery  is  of  such 
a  character  that  the  common-law 
lien  may  be  had  upon  it,  doubts 
should  be  so  resolved  as  to  hold 
it  also  liable  to  the  statutory 
lien.  Griggs  v.  Stone,  51,  22 
Vroom  (N.  J.  L.)  549,  18  Atl.  1094, 
7   L.   R.   A.   48.     See   also   Griffin 


41 


CHARACTER  OF  BUILDING,    ETC. APPURTENANCES.  [§  15 


nant  to  the  building,*"'  or  included  in  the  contract  for  the  build- 
ing.^i      If  not  appurtenant,''^   or  not  within  the  contract  for 


V.   Ernst,    124   App.    Div.    (N.    Y.) 
289,  108  N.  Y.  Supp.  816. 

60  Balch  V.  Chaffee,  73  Conn. 
318,  47  Atl.  327,  a  well; 
Beatty  v.  Parker,  141  Mass,  523, 
6  N.  E.  754,  a  pipe  connecting  a 
house  with  a  sewer;  Brush  Elec- 
tric Co.  V.  Warwick  Electric 
Manuf'g  Co.,  6  Ohio  Dec.  459,  4 
Ohio  (N.  P.)  279,  a  reservoir  to 
store  water  for  use  of  a  factory; 
Willamette  Falls  Trans.  &  Mill 
Co.  V.  Remick,  1  Ore.  169,  a  dam 
for  a  mill;  Steger  v.  Arctic  Re- 
frigerating Co.,  89  Tenn.  453,  14 
S.  W.  1087,  11  L.  R.  A.  580,  pipes 
in  a  cold  storage  plant  to  convey 
vapor  to  customers;  Badger  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Marion  Water  Supply 
&  Power  Co.,  48  Kan.  182,  29  Pac. 
476,  30  Am.  St.  301,  15  L.  R.  A. 
652,  electric  light;  O'Neil  v.  Tay- 
lor, 59  W.  Va.  376,  53  S.  E.  471, 
coal  house.  See  Dec.  Dig.  tit. 
Mechanics'  Liens,  §  33. 

61  Henry  v.  Plitt,  84  Mo.  237,  a 
fence;  Account  of  Ermentrout,  1 
Woodw.  Dec.  (Pa.)  158;  Missouri 
Val.  Cut  Stone  Works  v.  Brown, 
50  Mo.  App.  407,  retaining  wall. 
Hose  and  hose  racks  allowed  al- 
though not  in  same  contract. 
Crane  Co.  v.  Epworth  Hotel  Con- 
struction &  Real  Estate  Co.,  121 
Mo.  App.  209,  98  S.  W.  795. 

62  Eastern  Arkansas  Hedge- 
Fence  Co.  V.  Tanner,  67  Ark.  156, 
53  S.  W.  886;  Parmelee  v.  Ham- 
bleton,  19  111.  615,  a  vault  under 
a  sidewalk;  Canisius  v.  Merrill, 
65    111.    67,    fencing;    Truesdell   v. 


Gay,  79  Mass.  (13  Gray)  311,  a  re- 
taining wall. 

PoTver  house. — A  mechanics' 
lien  cannot  be  filed  against  a  ho- 
tel building  for  the  furnishings 
of  a  power  house,  located  1,700 
feet  away,  on  an  entirely  separate 
lot,  and  which  was  built,  not  as 
a  part  of  the  hotel  plant  alone, 
but  with  a  view  to  furnishing 
water,  heat,  light  and  power  to 
individuals  as  well.  Worthington 
V.  Cambridge  Springs  Co.,  24  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  (Pa.)  281,  31  Pittsb.  Leg. 
J.  (N.  S.)  277.  A  gas  producer 
289  feet  distant.  Cowan  v.  Penn- 
sylvania Plate-Glass  Co.,  184  Pa. 
St.   16,   38   Atl.   1081. 

Planting  flowers. — In  Shan- 
non's Code,  3531,  providing  that 
"there  shall  be  a  lien  upon  any 
lot  of  ground  or  tract  of  land 
upon  which  a  house  has  been  con- 
structed, built  or  repaired,  or  fix- 
tures or  machinery  furnished  or 
erected,  or  improvements  made, 
in  favor  of  the  mechanic  or  un- 
dertaker, and  in  favor  of  all  per- 
sons who  do  any  portion  of  the 
work  or  furnish  any  portion  of 
the  material,  for  the  building 
contemplated  in  this  section,  the 
term  "Improvements  made"  re- 
fers only  to  buildings  or  other 
structures  and  the  statute  does 
not  give  a  lien  for  furnishing 
and  planting  flowers,  trees  and 
shrubbery,  or  grading  and  grav- 
eling of  walks.  Nanz  v.  Cumber- 
land Gap  Park  Co.,  103  Tenn.  299, 
52  S.  W.  999,  47  L.  R.  A.  273. 


§16] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


42 


building,  there  is  no  lien/^^  "Yhe  weight  of  authority  is  that 
there  can  be  no  mechanic's  Hen  for  grading,  curbing  or  pav- 
ing a  street  in  front  of  a  house,^'*  or  for  building  a  sidewalk,^^ 
unless  it  is  all  done  under  a  contract  for  erecting  the  build- 
ing.^^  Some  few  courts  have  included  such  work  as  being 
an  appurtenant  to  the  building,  and  made  the  building  liable 
for  the  lien.'^'^  And  one  court  has  held  that  it  might  even  in- 
clude a  sewer,''^  or  drain  pipe.*'^ 

§  16.  Kind  of  services  giving  a  lien. — The  statute  very  often 
specifies  what  particular  kind  of  labor  will  be  included.  Gen- 
erally, however,  the  lien  is  given  to  any  person  wdio  performs 
labor,^  and  the  word  "labor"  is  not  given  a  narrow  or  strained 
construction.2     As  a  matter  of  course  the  "labor"  must  come 


63  Balch  V.  Chaffee,  73  Conn. 
318,  47  Atl.  327. 

C4  Smith  V.  Kennedy,  89  111. 
485;  Clymer  Paving  Co.  v.  Done- 
gan  (Com.  PL),  4  Pa.  Dist.  243. 
See  Dec.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§34. 

65  Fleming  v.  Prudential  Ins. 
Co.  (Colo.),  73  Pac.  752.  In  this 
last  case  it  is  so  held  because  the 
walk  is  not  on  the  land  of  the 
owner  of  the  building.  Seeman 
V.  Schultze,  100  Ga.  603,  28  S.  E. 
378.  In  this  case  it  was  consid- 
ered rather  a  public  than  a  pri- 
vate benefit. 

Iowa. — Coenen  v.  Straub,  74 
Iowa  32,  36  N.  W.  877,  7  Am.  Rep. 
470. 

Indiaua. — Knaube  v.  Kerchner, 
39   Ind.  217. 

Missouri. — Dugan  Cut-Stone  Co. 
V.  Gray,  43  Mo.  App.  671. 

Pennsylvania, — W.  T.  Bradley 
Co.  V.  Gaghan,  208  Pa.  511,  57 
Atl.  985;  Edelkamm  v.  Comly 
(Com.  PL),  12  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  371. 


60  Missouri. — Pullis  v.  Hoffman, 
28  Mo.  App.  666;  McDermott  v. 
Class,  104  Mo.  14,  15  S.  W.  995; 
Dugan  Cut-Stone  Co.  v.  Gray,  114 
Mo.  497,  21  S.  W.  854,  35  Am.  St. 
767. 

Pennsylvania. — Yearsley  v.  Flan- 
igan,  22  Pa.  489. 

IVest  Tirginia. — O'Neil  v.  Tay- 
lor, 59  W.  Va.  370,  53  S.  E.  471. 

6"  Dugan  Cut-Stone  Co.  v.  Gray, 
114  Mo.  497,  21  S.  W.  854,  35 
Am.  St.  767;  Kenney  v.  Apgar,  93 
N.  Y.  539;  McCain  v.  Hutton,  131 
Cal.  132,  63  Pac.  182;  window  and 
door  screens,  E.  M.  Fish  Co.  v. 
Young,  127  Wis.  149,  106  N.  W. 
795. 

68  Williams,  Belser  &  Co.  v. 
Rowell,  145  Cal.  259,  78  Pac.  725. 

69  O'Neil  V.  Taylor,  59  W.  Va. 
370,  53  S.  W.  471. 

1  Ohio  Laws  1894,  p.  1S5.  See 
§§  44,  45.  See  Dec.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,  §    35. 

2  Phoenix  Furniture  Co.  v.  Put- 
in-Bay Hotel  Co.,  66  Fed.  683. 


43 


KIND  OF  SERVICES  GIVING  LIEN. 


[§16 


within  the  provisions  of  the  statute  before  a  lien  can  be 
claimed.^  Among  other  things  charges  for  securing  material,* 
drawing  contract  for  building,*'^  and  "loss  of  time  for  men,  de- 
lay, risk  and  inconvenience  to  contract  w^ork,"^  cannot  be  se- 
cured by  lien.  As  a  general  proposition  it  may  be  said  that 
the  labor  must  be  a  kind  of  labor  that  is  included  in  the  con- 
tract between  the  owner  and  the  builder.®  The  term  "labor" 
is  not  entirely  confined  to  manual  labor.  Thus  the  services 
of  a  superintendent  whose  duty  it  was  to  superintend  the 
construction  of  the  building  were  included."^  However,  some 
courts  hold  to  the  contrary.^  And  those  courts  that  have  held 
in  favor  of  a  lien  for  superintendence  have  limited  it  to  super- 
intendence directly  on  the  building  and  not  on  something  away 
from  the  building,  though  it  might  be  used  therein.^     It  has 


3  Peatman  v.  Centerville  Light 
etc.,  Co.,  105  Iowa  1,  74  N.  W. 
689,  67  Am.  St.  276;  Burnside  v. 
O'Hara,  35  111.  App.  150;  Willa- 
mette Falls  Transp.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Remick,  1  Ore.  169;  Haynes  v. 
Holland  (Tenn.  Ch.  App.),  48 
S.  W.  400;  McAuliffe  v.  Jorgenson, 
107  Wis.  132,  82  N.  W.  706,  drill- 
ing and  casing  well;  Rolewitch 
V.  Harrington,  20  S.  Dak.  375,  107 
N.  W.  207,  6  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.)  550n. 

4  Edgar  v.  Salisbury,  17  Mo.  271; 
Price  V.  Merritt,  55  Mo.  App.  640. 

43-  Buckingham  v.  Flummerfelt, 
15  N.  Dak.  112,  106  N.  W.  403. 

5  Lee  V.  Brayton,  18  R.  I.  232,  26 
Atl.  256. 

6  Stokes  V.  Green,  10  S.  Dak. 
286,  73  N.  W.  100. 

7  Colorado. — Fischer  v.  Hanna, 
8  Colo.  App.  471,  47  Pac.  303. 

Louisiana. — Mulligan  v.  Mulli- 
gan, 18  La.  Ann.  20. 

Minnesota,  —  Waganstein  v. 
Jones,  61  Minn.  262,  63  N.  W.  717. 


New  York. — Stryker  v.  Cassidy, 
76  N.  Y.  50,  32  Am.  Rep.  262n. 

Oregon.  —  Willamette  Falls 
Transp.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Remick,  1 
Ore.  169. 

See  Dec.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics' 
Liens,  §  42.  ' 

An  employe  of  a  contractor  who 
kept  the  books  of  his  employer, 
superintended  a  part  of  the  work, 
and  was  foreman  of  the  laborers, 
cannot  be  said,  as  a  matter  of 
law,  to  be  a  laborer  entitled  to  a 
lien  for  his  work,  and  the  issue 
was  for  the  jury.  Tuck  v.  Moss 
Mfg.  Co.,  127  Ga.  729,  56  S.  E. 
1001. 

8  Pitschke  v.  Pope,  20  Colo. 
App.  328,  78  Pac.  1077;  Cook  v. 
Ross,  117  N.  Car.  193,  23  S.  E. 
252;  Jones  v.  Shawhan,  4  Watts 
&  S.   (Pa.)   257. 

'•>  Smallhouse  v.  Kentucky  & 
Montana  Gold,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Mont. 
443. 


16] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


44 


been  held  that  a  mechanic  could  not  claim  a  lien  for  his  serv- 
ices in  superintending  workmen  on  his  own  building.^^  The 
oversight  of  farm  hands  is  not  included,  and  the  same  rule 
is  applied  to  the  instructing  of  a  superintendent.^^  As 
a  general  rule  the  architect  who  prepares  the  plans  and  speci- 
fications and  superintends  the  construction  of  the  work  is  en- 
titled to  a  lien.^-     Some  courts  hold  to  the  contrary  unless  the 


10  Blakey  v.  Blakey,  27  Mo.  39. 

Owner  superintending  his  own 
bnilding. — The  law  gives  the  me- 
chanic, builder,  artisan,  workman, 
laborer,  or  other  person,  who 
may  do  or  perform  any  work 
upon  or  furnish  materials  for  any 
building,  a  lien  on  the  same  to 
secure  the  payment  of  the  work 
done  or  materials  furnished;  but 
it  has  no  such  elastic  power  as  is 
claimed  for  it  in  this  case,  and 
it  cannot  be  stretched  to  cover, 
besides  the  value  of  the  work 
done  and  materials  furnished,  a 
claim  for  services  performed  by 
the  builder  for  himself  in  super- 
intending his  own  workmen.  Mc- 
Allister V.  Dennin,  27  Mo.  40. 

iiWhitaker  v.  Smith,  81  N. 
Car.  340,  31  Am.  Rep.  503. 

Instructing  superintendent. — A 
mechanics'  lien  may  be  acquired 
by  any  mechanic  or  other  person 
"who  shall  do  any  labor  upon,  or 
furnish  any  materials,  machinery, 
or  fixtures,  for  any  building,  erec- 
tion or  other  improvement  upon 
land."  Under  this  provision  a 
lien  may  be  obtained  for  the  la- 
bor of  a  man  to  operate  a  plant 
for  thirty  days,  in  order  to  test 
the  machinery  and  cause  it  to 
meet  the  requirements  of  the 
guaranty;    but   the    contractor    is 


not  entitled  to  a  lien  for  services 
rendered  in  instructing  the  su- 
perintendent, nor  for  the  assign- 
ment of  patent  rights  which  were 
not  included  in  the  use  of  the  ap- 
pliances which  the  contractor 
was  required  to  furnish.  Peat- 
man V.  Centerville  Light,  etc.,  Co., 
105  Iowa  1,  74  N.  W.  689,  67  Am. 
St.  276. 

12  Alabama. — Hughes  v.  Tor- 
gerson,  96  Ala.  346,  11  So.  209,  38 
Am.  St.  105,  16  L.  R.  A.  600n. 

Iowa. — Foster  v.  Tierney,  91 
Iowa  253,  59  N.  W.  56,  51  Am.  St. 
343. 

Illinois. — Freeman  v.  Rinaker, 
185  III.  172,  56  N.  E.  1055. 

Minnesota. — Gardner  v.  Leek, 
52  Minn.  522,  54  N.  W.  746; 
Knight  V.  Norris,  13  Minn.  473. 

iS'ebraska, — Henry  &  Coats- 
worth  Co.  V.  Halter,  58  Neb.  685, 
79   N.   W.   616. 

New  Jersey. — Mutual  Ben.  Life 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Rowand,  26  N.  J.  Eq. 
389. 

New  Mexico. — Johnson  v.  Mc- 
Clure,  10  N.  Mex.  506,  62  Pac. 
983. 

Ifew  York. — Stryker  v.  Cassidy, 
76  N.  Y.  50,  32  Am.  Rep.  262n; 
Rinn  v.  Electric  Power  Co.,  3 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  305,  38  N.  Y. 
Supp.   345. 


45 


KIND   OF   SERVICES   ON    BUILDING. 


17 


Statute  so  provides. ^^a  Merely  making  the  plans  if  they  are  used 
is  sufficient  to  give  a  lien/^  but  otherwise  if  they  are  not 
used.^'*  Keeping  books,  auditing  accounts  and  making  settle- 
ments w^ith  various  contractors  or  as  supervising  architect, 
as  a  general  rule  will  not  entitle  the  person  doing  the  same 
to  a  lien.^^  However,  a  person  in  order  to  get  a  lien  does  not 
necessarily  have  to  be  a  laborer  himself,  but  may  secure  it  for 
work  done  by  his  workmen. ^*5 

§  17.  Kind  of  services  on  building. — It  is  a  general  rule  that 
the  "labor"  must  in  some  way  go  towards  the  building  or  con- 
struction against  which  a  lien  is  claimed,^'''  or  be  appurtenant 


Pennsylvania. — St.  Clair  Coal 
Co.  V.  Martz,  75  Pa.  St.  384;  Bank 
V.  Gries,  35  Pa.  St.  423. 

Rhode  Island — Field  &  Slo- 
comb  V.  Consolidated  Mineral 
Water  Co.,  25  R.  I.  319,  55  Atl. 
757,  105  Am.   St.  895. 

See  Dec.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,  §  38. 

i2aLibbey  v.  Tidden,  192  Mass. 
175,  78  N.  E.  313. 

13  Parsons  v.  Brown,  97  Iowa 
699,  66  N.  W.  880;  Von  Dorn  v. 
Mengedoht,  41  Neb.  525,  59  N.  W. 
800;  constructed  on  different 
plan,  Buckingham  v.  Flummer- 
felt,  15  N.  Dak.  112,  106  N.  W. 
403. 

14  Foster  v.  Tierney,  91  Iowa 
253,  59  N.  W.  56,  51  Am.  St.  343; 
Price  V.  Kirk,  90  Pa.  St.  47,  13 
Phila.  (Pa.)  497;  Libbey  v.  Tid- 
den, 192  Mass.  175,  78  N.   E.   313. 

i">  Illinois. — Adler  v.  World's 
Pastime  Exposition  Co.,  126  111. 
373,   18    N.   E.    809. 

Kentucky. — Foushee  v.  Grigs- 
by,  75  Ky.    (12  Bush)   75. 


Missouri. — Raeder  v.  Bensberg, 
6  Mo.  App.  445. 

Pennsylvania. — Bank  v.  Gries, 
35    Pa.    St.   423. 

Tennessee. — Thompson  v.  Bax- 
ter, 92  Tenn.  305,  21  S.  W.  668,  36 
Am.   St.   85. 

These  cases  hold  that  the  arch- 
itect has  no  lien,  the  latter  be- 
cause an  architect  is  not  a  "me- 
chanic," "undertaker,"  or  "fur- 
nisher" within  the  statute. 

California, — McClain  v.  Hutton, 
131  Cal.  132,  61  Pac.  273,  63  Pac. 
182. 

Illinois. — Salem  v.  Lane  &  Bod- 
ley  Co.,  189  111.  593,  60  N.  E.  37, 
82  Am.  St.  481. 

10  Massaclinsetts. —  Parker  v. 
Bell,  73  Mass.  (7  Gray)  429; 
Wera  v.  Bowerman,  191  Mass.  458, 
78   N.   B.   102. 

Rliode  Island — Hatch  v.  Fau- 
cher,  15  R.  I.  459,  8  Atl.  543. 

1"  Webster  v.  Real  Estate  Imp. 
Co.,  140  Mass.  526,  6  N.  E.  71. 

See  Dec.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,  §  39. 


17] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


46 


to  the  building.^^  It  is  not  absolutely  necessary  that  the  labor 
be  performed  on  the  premises;  it  is  sufficient  if  the  result  of 
the  labor  goes  into  the  building  or  structure  or  is  intended  for 
that  purpose. ^^  There  can  be  no  lien  for  services  in  cooking 
for  or  lodging  men  employed  on  the  building.^*^  In  one  case, 
however,  where  it  was  included  in  the  building  contract,  it  was 
allowed.21  As  a  general  proposition  transporting  materials  to 
the  building  has  been  held  to  be  labor  for  which  a  lien  may  be 


18  Grading  a  lot. — Reid  v.  Ber- 
ry,  178   Mass.    260,   59    N.    E.   760. 

19  Wilson  V.  Sleeper,  131  Mass. 
177;  Scannell  v.  Hub  Brewing 
Co.,  178  Mass.  288,  59  N.  E.  628; 
Daley  v.  Legate,  169  Mass.  257, 
47  N.  E.  1013;  Howes  v.  Reliance 
Wire  Works  Co.,  46  Minn.  44,  48 
N.  W.  448. 

Done  on  Laud. — The  words 
"work  done  on  land"  are  some- 
what indefinite  in  their  charac- 
ter, and  it  might  be  a  matter  of 
some  difficulty  to  determine  ac- 
curately all  the  kinds  of  labor  for 
which  a  lien  can  be  obtained.  But 
without  attempting  to  decide 
whether  they  have  any  further 
extent,  we  think  they  were  cer- 
tainly designed  to  include  all  la- 
bor done  directly  upon  the  land 
for  the  purpose  of  preparing  it 
for  use  as  such.  And  fencing 
would  seem  to  fall  within  this 
class.  It  is  done  upon  the  land, 
the  fence  becomes  appurtenant  to 
the  land,  and  its  object  is  to  en- 
able the  land  to  be  used  or  oc- 
cupied as  such. 

Bailey  v.  Hull,  11  Wis.  289 
[302]. 

See  Dec.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,  §  43. 


Furnisliing    Under    Contract. — 

The  statute  must  have  a  reason- 
able and  practical  construction. 
Otherwise  great  injustice  might 
frequently  result.  In  these  days 
a  large  portion  of  the  material 
furnished  for  the  construction  of 
buildings,  such  as  cut  stone,  in- 
side finishing,  etc.,  is  prepared 
at  the  yard  or  shop  of  the  con- 
tractor or  manufacturer,  in  ac- 
cordance with  plans  and  speci- 
fications for  particular  buildings, 
with  the  implied  consent  of  the 
owner,  and  which  in  many  cases 
would  be  of  comparatively  little 
value  for  use  elsewhere.  Such 
work  of  preparation  should  be 
deemed  a  part  of  the  construc- 
tion or  "furnishing"  under  the 
contract.  Howes  v.  Reliance 
Wire-Works  Co.,  46  Minn.  44,  48 
N.  W.  448;  Berger  v.  Turnblad, 
98  Minn.  163,  107  N.  W.  543,  116 
Am.  St.  353;  Parrish  and  Haz- 
zard's  Appeal,  83  Pa.  St.  Ill; 
Sweet  V.  James,  2  R.  I.  270. 

20  McCormick  v.  Los  Angeles 
City  Water  Co.,  40  Cal.  185. 

2iLybrandt  v.  Eberly,  36  Pa. 
St.  347. 

See  Dec.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Lien,  §  47. 


47 


KIND  OF  MATERIAL  GIVING  LIEN. 


[§18 


had. 22     It  must  be  shown,  however,  that  the  materials  were 
furnished  for,  or  used  in  the  building.-^ 

§  18.  Kind  of  material  giving  a  lien. — No  particular  rule 
can  be  given  as  to  the  kind  of  material  for  which  a  lien  may 
be  had  otherwise  than  to  state  that  it  generally  will  include  all 
kinds  of  material  that  may  be  used  in  the  building  or  structure 
for  which  a  lien  is  given  by  law  and  which  is  included  within 
the  express  or  implied  terms  of  the  building  contract.^  Even 
if  not  included  within  the  express  or  implied  terms  of  the 
building  contract,  a  sub-contractor  may  have  his  lien  if  the 
materials  are  of  the  proper  kind  to  be  used  in  the  building, 
and  if  he  believed  they  were  for  that  purpose.^  It  does  not 
matter  whether  the  materials  are  in  the  rough,^  or  in  large 
or  small  quantities,  or  from  whom  purchased,  or  whether  they 
are  kept  by  the  contractor  as  ordinary  merchandise.^  Sod 
used  in  a  public  park  is  proper  in  that  kind  of  an  improve- 


22  Colorado. —  Tabor  v.  Arm- 
strong, 9  Colo.  285,  12  Pac.  157. 

Kentucky. — Fowler  &  Guy  v. 
Pompelly,  25  Ky.  L.  615,  76  S.  W. 
173. 

Minnesota. — McKeen  v.  Hazel- 
tine,  46  Minn.   426,  49   N.  W.  195. 

PennsylTani  a. — Tizzard  v. 
Hughes,  3  Phila.  (Pa.)  261;  Hill 
V.  Newman,  38  Pa.  St.  151,  80  Am. 
Dec.  473;  Holman  v.  Redemptor- 
ist  Fathers,  4  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  233. 

South  Dakota. — Kehoe  v.  Han- 
sen, 8  S.  Dak.  198,  65  N.  W.  1075, 
59  Am.  St.  759;  also  2  S.  Dak. 
200. 

In  Massachusetts,  which  seems 
to  stand  alone,  it  was  held,  that 
the  carting  of  lumber  and  sand 
did  not  give  a  lien.  Webster  v. 
Real  Estate  Imp.  Co.,  140  Mass. 
526,   6   N.   E.    71. 


23  Wilson  V.  Nugent,  125  Cal. 
280,   57  Pac.   1008. 

1  Hazard  Powder  Co.  v.  Byrnes, 
12  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  469,  21  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  189. 

See  Dec.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,  §  45. 

2  Odd  Fellows'  Hall  v.  Masser, 
24  Pa.  St.  507,  64  Am.  Dec.  675n. 

3  Busfield  V.  Wheeler,  96  Mass. 
(14  Allen)  139;  Grand  Island 
Banking  Co.  v.  Koehler,  57  Neb. 
649,  78  N.  W.  265. 

^  Sweet  V.  James,  2  R.  I.  270; 
Progress  Press-Brick  &  Mach. 
Co.  V.  Gratiot  Brick  &  Quarry 
Co.,  151  Mo.  501,  52  S.  W.  401,  74 
Am.  St.  557;  Weatherly  v.  Van 
Wyck,  128  Cal.  329,  60  Pac.  846; 
Reobling  Sons  Co.  v.  Bear  Val. 
Irri.  Co.,  99  Cal.  488,  34  Pac.  80. 


18] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


48 


ment.^  So  also  are  materials  for  a  heating  plant  in  a  hotel,^^  an 
asbestos  covering  for  a  still  and  pipe,*^  an  apparatus  for  open- 
ing and  closing  windows,^^  and  paint."  But  tools  furnished 
to  a  contractor  to  be  used  by  him  on  the  building,  or  struc- 
ture, are  not  such  as  will  give  a  lien.^  So  it  has  been  held  that 
the  putting  of  a  completed  house  on  a  lot  of  ground  is  not 
within  the  ordinary  statute,  unless  the  completed  house  was 
part  of  a  larger  structure.^  Where  machinery  is  specified  it 
means  the  completed  machine  and  not  its  parts. ^^  As  stat- 
utes of  this  character  have  no  extra  territorial  effect  the 
question  has  sometimes  been  raised  whether  material  not  de- 
livered within  the  state  is  included  in  the  law.  The  general 
rule  is  that  this  makes  no  difference. ^^  In  a  New  York  case, 
however,  it  was  held  that  if  the  contract  was  to  be  performed 
in  another  state,  no  lien  could  be  had  in  that  state. ^^  ^^g  a 
general  rule,  materials  that  are  used  but  not  incorporated  in 
the  work,  such  as  tools,  etc.,  are  not  within  the  statute. ^^    p^t- 


5  Fox  V.  Rehsteiner,  18  Ohio 
Cir.   Ct.    610. 

^^  Siegmund  v.  Kellogg-Mackay- 
Cameron  Co.,  38  Ind.  App.  95,  77 
N.   E.   1096. 

6  Angier  v.  Bay  State  Distilling 
Co.,  178  Mass.  163,  59  N.  E.  630. 

0"  McNab  &c.  Mfg.  Co.  v-  Pat- 
erson  Bldg.  Co.  (N.  J.  Eq.),  63. 
Atl.   709. 

"  Van  Calvert  v.  McKinney,  2 
Tex.  Unrep.  Cas.  345. 

8  Evans  v.  Lowler,  67  N.  J.  Eq. 
232,  58   Atl.   294. 

9  Seldon  v.  Meeks,  17  Cal.  128; 
Dorsey  v.  Langworthy,  3  G. 
Greene    (Iowa)    341. 

10  Campbell  v.  John  W.  Taylor 
Mfg.  Co.,  62  N.  J.  Eq.  307,  49  Atl. 
1119. 

11  Parker  Land  &  Imp.  Co.  v. 
Reddick,  18  Ind.  App.   616,  47  N. 


E.  848.  Nonresidence  of  claim- 
ants makes  no  difference.  Atkins 
V.  Little,  17  Minn.  342;  Great 
Western  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hunter,  15 
Neb.  32,  16  N.  W.  759;  Badger 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Mayes,  38  Neb. 
822,  57  N.  W.  519;  Bender  v.  Stet- 
tinius,  19  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  163,  10 
Ohio  Dec.  (Re.)  186;  Mallory  v. 
La  Crosse  Abattoir  Co.,  80  Wis. 
170,   49   N.   W.   1071. 

Expressage — When  allowed. — 
Nancolas  &  Howard  v.  Hitaffer 
&  Prouty,  136  Iowa  341,  112  N. 
W.  382,  12  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.)    864n. 

1-  Campbell  v.  Coon,  8  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  234,  28  N.  Y.  Supp.  561, 
59  N.  Y.   St.   200. 

13  Basshor  v.  Baltimore  &c.  R. 
Co.,  65  Md.  99,  3  Atl.  285. 

See  Dec.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,  §   47. 


49 


KIND  OF  MATERIAL  USED  IN   BUILDING. 


[§19 


terns  for  boxes  in  which  materials  are  shipped/^  lumber  for 
scaffolding,^^  lubricating  oil  for  machinery/^  a  temporary- 
bridge  to  be  used  while  another  is  being  constructed/'^  pat- 
ents for  manufacturing  gas  in  gas  plant/^  machinery  used  in 
construction,^^  are  not  within  the  statute.-^ 

§  19.  Kind  of  material  used  in  building. — Considerable 
controversy  has  arisen  over  the  question  whether  or  not  mate- 
rials which  were  prepared  or  furnished,  but  not  used  in  the 
building  or  structure,  are  included  in  the  lien  laws,  and  the 
weight  of  authority  is  to  the  effect  that  only  such  materials  as 
are  actually  used  in  the  construction  of  the  building  can  come 
within  the  provisions  of  the  law.-^  And  this  would  seem  to 
be  the  proper  conclusion,  after  taking  into  consideration  the 
theory  of  the  lien  law,  that  the  land  is  liable  because  of  there 
being  value  added  to  it.  If  the  material  was  not  used  there 
would  be  no  added  value  to  the  land.     However,  as  between 


14  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Ferris 
Irrigation  Dist.,  107  Cal.  55,  40 
Pac.  45. 

15  Oppenheimer  v.  Morrell,  118 
Pa.   St.   189,  12  Atl.   307. 

16  Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  Lane,  75 
Wis.  636,  44  N.  W.  644,  7  L.  R.  A. 
191. 

i''^  Stimson  Mill  Co.  v.  Los  An- 
geles Traction  Co.,  141  Cal.  30,  74 
Pac.   357. 

18  Peatman  v.  Centerville  Light 
Co.,  105  Iowa  1,  74  N.  W.  689,  67 
Am.  St.  276. 

19  Jerecke  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Struther, 
14  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  400,  8  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.  5. 

20  Evans  v.  Lower,  67  N.  J.  Eq. 
232,   58   Atl.   294. 

Barrels   for  lime. — Where   lime 
was    furnished   for   the   construe-  • 
tion   of  a  building,   the  lien  may 
include    a   charge   for   barrels    in 


which  the  lime  was  sent,  but 
which  were  not  returned  after 
it  was  used.  Snell  v.  Payne,  115 
Cal.   218,   46    Pac.   1069. 

21  Alabama,— Lee  v.  King,  99 
Ala.   246,   13   So.   506. 

Arkansas. — Central  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Braddock  Land  &  Granite  Co., 
84  Ark.  560,  105  S.  W.  583. 

Connecticut. — Chapin  v.  Persse 
&c.  Paper  Works,  30  Conn.  461, 
79   Am.    Dec.    263n. 

Illinois. —  Compound  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Murphy,  169  111.  343,  48  N. 
E.  472;  Hunter  vi  Blanchard,  18 
111.  318;  68  Am.  Dec.  547. 

Kansas. — Hill  v.  Bowers,  45 
Kan.  592,  26  Pac.  13;  McGarry  v. 
Averill,  50  Kan.  362,  31  Pac.  1082, 
34  Am.  St.  120. 

Louisiana. — Consolidated  Engi- 
neering Co.  V.  Town  of  Crowley, 
105   La.   615,   30   So.  222. 


§20] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


50 


the  owner  and  material  man  if  it  is  the  owner's  fault  that  they 
are  not  used,  this  will  not  absolve  the  property  from  lia- 
bility for  the  lien.--  Thus,  if  the  owner  goes  into  bank- 
ruptcy,-^ or  suffers  his  property  to  go  into  the  hands  of  a 
receiver,2^  or  diverts  the  material  to  other  use,^^  or  otherwise 
appropriates  it  to  his  own  use,  the  right  to  a  lien  will  not  be 
defeated. 20 


§  20.  Kind  of  material  furnished  on  credit  of  building. — In 
some  states  it  has  been  held  sufficient  between  owner  and  con- 
tractor that  the  material  is  furnished  on  the  credit  of  the  pro- 
posed building.-"     In  such  cases,  however,  the  material  must 


Missouri. — Simmons  v.  Carrier, 
60  Mo.  581;  Schulenberg  v.  Prai- 
rie Home  Inst.,  6.5  Mo.  295;  Dear- 
dorff  V.  Everhartt,  74  Mo.  37; 
Fitzpatrick  v.  Thomas,  61  'Mo. 
512;  Current  River  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Cravens,  54  Mo.  App.  216. 

Nebraslia. — Weir  v.  Barnes,  38 
Neb.   875,   57  N.  W.   750. 

Oregon. — Fitch  v.  Howitt,  32 
Ore.  396,  52  Pac.  192. 

PennsylTania, —  Stephens  v. 

Campbell,  13  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  7. 

Texas. — Murphy  v.  Fleetford, 
30  Tex.  Civ.  App.  487,  70  S.  W. 
989. 

Vermont. — Hinckley  &c.  Iron 
Co.  V.  James,  51  Vt.  240. 

West  Virginia. — McConnell  v. 
Hewes,  50  W.  Va.  33,  40  S.  E. 
436. 

22  Trammell  v.  Mount,  6S  Tex. 
210,  4  S.  W.  377,  2  Am.  St.  479; 
Salem  v.  Lane  &  Bodley  Co.,  189 
111.  593,  60  N.  E.  37,  82  Am.  St. 
481;  Bell  v.  Mecum,  N.  J.  L.— , 
68  Atl.  149. 

23  Hinchman  v.  Graham.  2 
Serg.    &    R.    (Pa.)    170;    Sears    v. 


Wise,  52  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   118,  64 
N.   Y.   Supp.   1063. 

24  Hickey  v.  Collom,  47  Minn. 
565,  50  N.  W.  918;  Burns  v.  Sew- 
ell,  48  Minn.  425,  51  N.  W.  224; 
Totten  &c.  Iron  &  Steel  Foundry 
Co.  V.  IMuncie  Nail  Co.,  148  Ind. 
372,  47  N.  E.  703. 

25  Colorado.— Small  v.  Foley,  8 
Colo.  App.  435,  47  Pac.  64. 

Illinois. — Chicago  Artesian 
Well  Co.  V.  Corey,  60  111.  73. 

]Vew  Jersey. — Morris  County 
Bank  v.  Rockaway  Mfg.  Co.,  14 
N.  J.  Eq.  189. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Presbyterian 
Mursch  (Com.  PI.),  1  Lack.  Leg. 
N.   (Pa.)   247. 

Wisconsin. — Esslinger  v.  Hueb- 
ner,  22  Wis.  632. 

2C  Beckel  v.  Petticrew,  6  Ohio 
St.  247. 

2"  New  Jersey. — Morris  County 
Bank  v.  Rockaway  Mfg.  Co.,  14 
N.  J.  Eq.   189. 

Pennsylvania,  —  Presbyterian 
Church  V.  Allison,  10  Pa.  St.  413; 
Odd  Fellows'  Hall  v.  Masser,  24 
Pa.    St.    507,    64    Am.    Dec.    675n; 


51 


FURNISHED  ON   CREDIT  OF   BUILDING, 


[§20 


have  been  specifically  contracted  for.^s  Generally  subcon- 
tractors are  not  deprived  of  their  right  to  a  lien  by  the  fact 
that  the  contractor  suspends  work.^S'^  Of  course  if  there  is 
nothing  due  a  contractor  the  subcontractor  will  not  get  any- 
thing.29  However,  if  some  materials  were  used  and  others 
not,  there  may  be  a  question  between  sub-contractors  as  to 
which  would  be  included. ^^  The  material  furnished  must  be 
such  as  is  proper  and  suitable  within  the  terms  of  the  original 
contract  before  it  can  be  subject  to  the  lien.^^  Like  any  other 
matter  of  contract,  this  may  be  waived  by  the  owner.32  In 
order,  however,  to  defeat  the  lien  for  imperfection  of  the  ma- 
terial, it  must  be  a  substantial  imperfection.^^    Money  does  not 


Gaule  V.  Bilyeau,  25  Pa.  St.  521; 
Murphy  v.  Ellis,  11  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
301;  Linden  Steel  Co.  v.  Impe- 
rial Refining  Co.,  146  Pa.  St.  4. 
23  Atl.  800.  See  Dec.  Dig.  tit. 
Mechanics'  Liens,  §  53. 

28  Daniel  v.  Weaver,  73  Tenn. 
(5  Lea)  392;  Lee  v.  Hoyt,  101 
Iowa,  101,  70  N.  W.  95;  Hobson 
Bros.  V.  Townsend,  126  Iowa  453, 
102  N.  W.  413;  Jonte  v.  Gill 
(Tenn.  Ch.  App.)   39  S.  W.  750. 

28a  Huttig  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Denny  Hotel  Co.,  6  Wash.  122,  32 
Pac.  1073. 

29  McConnell  v.  Hewes,  50  W. 
Va.  33,  40  S.  E.  436. 

Evidence  as  to  use. — All  that 
the  plaintiff  is  required  to  show, 
is  the  fact  that  the  materials 
were  furnished  for  the  purpose 
of  being  used  in  constructing  the 
building.  It  would  be  altogether 
unreasonable  to  require  him  to 
follow  those  materials  from  his 
lumber  yard  to  the  building,  and 
to  make  positive  proof  of  the 
fact  that  they  were  actually  used 
for  the   purposes  for  which  they 


were  alleged  to  have  been  pur- 
chased. Such  a  thing  is  not  only 
a  matter  of  extreme  inconven- 
ience in  all  cases,  but  in  a  ma- 
jority of  instances  must  be  to- 
tally impracticable.  In  contem- 
plation of  law  the  owner  of  the 
building,  by  employing  a  person 
to  do  the  work,  does  hereby 
clothe  him  with  authority,  not  to 
bind  him  individually  and  to  an 
unlimited  extent,  as  an  ordinary 
agent  might  do,  but  so  far  as 
the  procuring  of  materials  and 
labor  may  be  necessary  to  com- 
plete his  contract.  Morrison  v. 
Hancock,  40  Mo.  561. 

30  Esslinger  v.  Heubner,  22 
Wis.  632;  Murphy  v.  Pleetford,  30 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  487,  70   S.  W.  989. 

3iBoynton  Furnace  Co.  v.  Gil- 
bert, 87  Iowa  15,  53  N.  W.  1085; 
Harlan  v.  Rand,  27  Pa.  St.  511. 

32  Odd  Fellows'  Hall  v.  Masser, 
24  Pa.  St.  507,  64  Am.  Dec.  675n. 

33  Bianchi  v.  Hughes,  124  Cal. 
24,  56  Pac.  610;  Hinkley  v.  Graf- 
ton Hall,  101  Wis.  69,  76  N.  W. 
1093. 


21] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


52 


come  within  the  term  "labor"  or  "material,"  and  consequently 
when  advanced  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  material  ^^  or 
paying  for  labor,35  wall  not  be  included,  even  when  it  is  in- 
tended that  the  labor  and  material  shall  come  within  the  lien 
law.2*^ 

§  21.  Intent  with  which  services  are  rendered  or  materials 
furnished. — The  mere  fact  that  labor  and  material  are  of  the 
kind  for  which  a  lien  may  be  had  will  not  sufhce  in  all  cases  to 
authorize  a  lien ;  the  intent  with  which  the  labor  or  materials 
are  furnished  controls.  As  a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that 
in  order  for  the  lien  to  attach  the  materials  must  be  furnished 
with  the  intent  that  they  be  used  upon  the  building  which  it 
is  sought  to  make  subject  to  the  lien.^  It  is  clear  that  this 
element  of  intent  was  lacking  in  cases  where  the  furnisher  of 
material  did  not  know  that  they  were  to  be  used  in  the  build- 


34  Louisiana. —  First  Municipal- 
ity V.  Bell,  4  La.  Ann.  121. 

Missouri. — Ray  County  Sav. 
Bank  v.  Cramer,  54  Mo.  App.  587. 

New  Jersey. — Evans  v.  Lower, 
67  N.  J.  Eq.  232,  58  Atl.  294. 

Texas. — Gaylord  v.  Loughridge, 
50  Tex.  573;  First  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Campbell,  24  Tex.  Civ.  App.  160, 
58  S.  W.  628. 

35  Hamilton  v.  Stilvi^augh,  11 
Ohio  C.  C.  182. 

36  Godeffroy  v.  Caldwell,  2  Cal. 
489,  56  Am.  Dec.  360;  Williams  v. 
Bradford   (N.  J.  Eq.),  21  Atl.  331. 

A  building  and  loan  associa- 
tion.— International  Bldg.  &  Loan 
Assn.  V.  Fortassian  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),   23   S.  W.  496. 

If  special  credit  is  given  to 
owner  no  lien  will  lie. — Kerby  v. 
Daly,  45  N.  Y.  84. 


1  Kansas. — Weaver  v.  Sells,  10 
Kan.  609. 

Massachusetts. —  B  e  n  n  e  t  v. 
Schackford,  93  Mass.  (11  Allen) 
444. 

Missouri..— Current  River  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Cravens,  54  Mo.  App. 
216. 

Nebraska. — Marrener  v.  Paxton, 
17  Neb.  634,  24  N.  W.  209;  White 
Lake  Lumber  Co.  v.  Russell,  22 
Neb.  126,  34  N.  W.  104,  3  Am.  St. 
262. 

North  Carolina. — Lanier  v.  Bell, 
81  N.  Car.  337. 

Tennessee. — Mills  v.  Terry  Mfg. 
Co.,  91  Tenn.  469,  19   S.  W.  328- 

Manitoba. — McArthur  v.  Dewar, 
3  Man.  R.  72;  Sprague  v.  Besant, 
3  Man.  R.  519. 

I'^Knudson-Jacob  Co.  v.  Brandt, 
44  Wash.  68,  87  Pac.  43. 


53 


INTENT  ON  PARTICULAR  BUILDING. 


[§22 


ing,2  or  where  he  sold  them  upon  a  general  account,^  or  under 
a  general  sale  without  reference  to  where  they  are  to  be  used,^ 
or  what  is  to  be  done  with  them.^  Where  the  property  is  in 
the  hands  of  a  receiver  the  rights  of  the  furnisher  are  to  be 
worked  out  through  the  court  appointing  the  receiver.^  As 
a  general  rule  the  sub-contractor  must  always  show  that  the 
material  was  actually  delivered  at  the  building  or  used  there- 
inJ  Courts  are  more  liberal  in  protecting  the  furnisher  of  ma- 
terials that  actually  goes  into  the  building  than  where  it  is 
not  so  used.^ 

§  22.  Intent  on  particular  building. — A  good  many  of  the 
courts  have  held  that  it  must  not  only  be  the  intention  of  the 
parties  furnishing  the  lumber  that  it  should  be  used  for  build- 
ing purposes,  but  that  it  should  go  into  a  particular  building.^ 


2  Two  car  loads  of  brick,  pur- 
chased before  contract  for  build- 
ing made.  Cook  v.  Rome  Brick 
Co.,  98  Ala.  409,  12  So.  918. 

3  Pogue  V.  Clark,  25  111.  351 
[308]. 

4  Weaver  v.  Sells,  10  Kan.  609; 
Colorado  Iron  Works  v.  Rieken- 
berg,  4  Idaho  705,  43  Pac.  681; 
Bennett  v.  Shackford,  93  Mass.  (11 
Allen)    444. 

5  Mills  V.  Terry  Mfg.  Co.,  91 
Tenn.  469,  19  S.  W.  328. 

G  In  re  Cook,  3  Biss.  (U.  S.) 
116,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.   3,151. 

'  Foster  v.  Dohle,  17  Neb.  631, 
24  N.  W.  208;  Marrender  v.  Pax- 
ton,  17  Neb.  634,  24  N.  W.  209. 

8  Precise  accuracy  not  required. 
Halsted  &  Harmount  v.  Arick,  76 
Conn.  382,  56  Atl.  628.  If  it  can- 
not be  determined  no  lien  will 
attach.  Angler  v.  Bay  State  Dis- 
tilling Co.,  178  Mass.  163,  59  N. 
E.  630. 


Mistake  of  lot — Where  mate- 
rials are  furnished  to  be  used  in 
erecting  a  building  on  lot  3,  but 
by  mistake  the  building  is  erected 
on  lot  4,  and  is  afterwards  re- 
moved to  lot  2,  the  material  man 
is  not  entitled  to  a  lien  on  lot  2. 
Lingren  v.  Nilsen,  50  Minn.  448, 
52  N.  W.  915;  A.  M.  Stevens  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Kansas  City  Lumber 
Co.,  72  Mo.  App.  248;  Scott  v. 
Scott,  196  Pa.  St.  132,  46  Atl.  379; 
Salt  Lake  Lithographing  Co.  v. 
Ibex  Mine  &  Smelting  Co.,  15 
Utah  440,  49  Pac.  768,  62  Am. 
St.   944. 

9  Alabama. —  Cook  v.  Rome 
Brick  Co.,  98  Ala.  409,  12  So.  918. 

California. — Bottomly  v.  Grace 
Church,  2  Cal.  90;  Houghton  v. 
Blake,  5  Cal.  240;  Holmes  v. 
Richet,  56  Cal.-  307;  38  Am.  Rep. 
54. 

Connecticut. — Chapin  v.  Persse 
&c.  Paper  Works,  30  Conn.  461, 
79  Am.  Dec.  263n. 


§22] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


54 


Other  courts,  however,  hold  that  it  is  sufficient  if  the  intention 
was  that  the  lumber  should  be  used  upon  some  building-  on  the 
land  without  having-  any  particular  building  in  mind.^*^  There  is 
no  way  of  reconciling  these  divergent  opinions,  but  it  is  thought 
that  with  the  advance  of  the  doctrine  of  a  more  liberal  construc- 
tion of  these  laws  the  prevailing  opinion  will  finally  be,  es- 
pecially between  the  owner  and  contractor,  that  it  will  be  suf- 
ficient if  the  material  was  furnished  for  the  purpose  of  some 
building  without  having  a  particular  one  in  mind.  On  this 
theory  the  sub-contractor  who  furnishes  material  to  a  con- 
tractor who  is  engaged  on  several  buildings  may  divide  his 
lien,  and  hold  each  separate  piece  of  property  for  the  material 
that  actually  went  into  it.^^  In  such  cases  it  devolves  upon  the 
material  man  to  show  that  it  went  into  the  buildinsf.^^     The 


Florida. — M  anatee  Light  & 
Traction  Co.  v.  Tampa  Plumbing 
&  Supply  Co.,  .52  Fla.  533,  42  So. 
703. 

Indiana. — Hill  v.  Sloan,  59  Ind. 
181. 

Michigan —  North  v.  Globe 
Fence  Co.,  144  Mich.  557,  108  N. 
W.  285,  13  Det.  Leg.  N.  305. 

New  York. — Watrous  v.  Elmen- 
dorf,   55   How.   Prac.    (N.   Y.)    461. 

Oliio. — Horton  v.  Carlisle,  2 
Disney    (Ohio)    184. 

Pennsylvania. — Hills  v.  Elliott, 
16   Serg.   &   R.    (Pa.)    56. 

South  Carolina, — Wardlaw  v. 
Troy  Oil  Mill,  74  S.  Car.  368,  54 
S.  E.  658,  114  Am.  St.  1004. 

Washington.— W.  P.  Fuller  & 
Co.  V.  Ryan,  44  Wash.  385,  87 
Pac.    485. 

10  Iowa. — Cotes  v.  Shorey,  8 
Iowa  416. 

Minnesota. — Atliins  v.  Little,  17 
Minn.  342;  Emery  v.  Hertig,  60 
Minn.  54,  61  N.  W.  830. 


M  i  s  s  0  u  r  i. — Schulenberg  &c. 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Johnson,  38  Mo. 
App.   404. 

Nebraska. — Great  Western  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Hunter,  15  Neb.  32,  16  N. 
W.  759. 

New  Jersey. — Morris  County 
Banli  V.  Rockaway  Mfg.  Co.,  14 
N.  J.  Eq.  189. 

New  York. — Watrous  v.  Elmen- 
dorf,  55  How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   461. 

Oliio. — Horton  v.  Carlisle,  2 
Disney   (Ohio)    184. 

11  Davis  V.  Farr,  13  Pa.  St.  167; 
Harper  v.  Keely,  17  Pa.  St.  234; 
Crawford  v.  Powell,  101  Ind.  421. 

12  Lewis  V.  Saylors,  73  Iowa 
504,  35  N.  W.  601;  Childs  v.  An- 
derson, 128  Mass.  108;  Sexton  v. 
Weaver,  141  Mass.  273,  6  N.  E. 
367. 

Separate  entries. — Separate  en- 
tries of  the  items  in  the  mate- 
rial man's  book  of  original  entry 
are  sufficient  to  preserve  the  in- 
tegrity of  a  lieu  account  for  ma- 


55 


FURNISHED  TO  PARTICULAR  BUILDING. 


[§22 


intention  necessary  to  hold  a  lien  is  absent  where  the  con- 
tract is  not  made  with  the  owner,  unless  authority  of  the 
agent  is  shown.  Thus,  when  a  husband  purchases  material 
for  the  erection  of  a  building  on  his  wife's  land,  the  material 
man  is  not  entitled  to  a  lien  unless  he  shows  that  the  contract 
was  made  with  the  wife's  authority.^^  j^  jg  ^igQ  required  that 
the  material  be  furnished  upon  the  credit  of  some  building,^^ 
and  not  upon  the  individual  credit  of  the  purchaser  ;i^  if  fur- 
nished for  an  unknown  purpose  there  will  be  no  lien.^^  But 
the  mere  fact  that  the  material  man  where  he  stands  in  the 
position  of  the  sub-contractor  intends  to  look  first  to  the  con- 
tractor and  if  he  fails  there,  then  to  the  building,  will  not  de- 
feat his  lien.i'^     Some  courts  hold  that  it  is  not  merely  neces- 


terials  furnished  for  the  erection 
of  a  building,  although  his  ledger 
contains  an  account  in  which 
such  items  are  lumped  together 
with  others.  Kaufman-Wilkin- 
son Lumber  Co.  v.  Christophel, 
59  Mo.  App.  80. 

IS  Hawkins  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Brown,  100  Ala.  217,  14  So.  110; 
Little  V.  Vredenburgh,  16  111.  App. 
(16  Bradw.)  189;  Getty  v.  Tra- 
mel,  67  Iowa  288,  25  N.  W.  245; 
Esslinger  v.  Huebner,  22  Wis. 
632;  Ryman  v.  Wolf,  6  Luzerne 
Legal  Reg.  Rep.    (Pa.)    325. 

See   §  §   37-39. 

1-1  Whittier  v.  Puget  Sound 
Loan  &c.  Co.,  4  Wash.  666,  30  Pac. 
1094,  31  Am.  St.  944. 

Equities  in  Houses. — A  mechan- 
ic's lien  cannot  be  sustained 
where  it  appears  as  a  fact  that 
the  claimant  did  not  look  to  the 
operation  of  the  lien  statute,  but 
to  the  equities  in  the  houses.  Na- 
tional Wall-Paper  Co.  (appeal  of), 
15  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  407;  Eisenbeis 
V.  Wakeman,  3  Wash.  St.  534,  28 


Pac.  923;  Harlan  v.  Rand,  27  Pa. 
St.  511. 

15  Alabama. —  Eufaula  Water 
Co.  V.  Addyston  Pipe  &  Steel  Co., 
89   Ala.   552,   8   So.  25. 

Connecticut. — Chapin  v.  Persse 
&c.  Paper  Works,  30  Conn.  461, 
79   Am.   Dec.  263n. 

Iowa — Brown  v.  Rodocker,  65 
Iowa  55,  21  N.  W.  160. 

Kansas. — Wagner  v.  Darby,  49 
Kan.  343,  30  Pac.  475,  33  Am.  St. 
369. 

Pennsylvania. —  Odd  Fellows' 
Hall  V.  Masser,  24  Pa.  St.  507,  64 
Am.  Dec.  675n. 

Rliode  Island. — Gurney  v.  Wal- 
sham,  16  R.  I.   698,  19  Atl.  323. 

16  Cotes  V.  Shorey,  8  Iowa,  416; 
Poole  V.  Union  Pass  Ry.  Co.  (Pa.), 
16  Atl.  736,  24  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.) 
376. 

1"  Sodini  v.  Winter,  32  Md.  130; 
Ridge  V.  Mercantile  Loan  &c.  Co., 
56  Mo.  App.  155;  Hommel  v.  Lew- 
is, 104  Pa.  St.  465;  Presbyterian 
Church  V.  Allison,  10  Pa.  St.  413. 


23] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


56 


sary  that  the  materials  must  be  furnished  on  the  credit  of  a  build- 
ing, but  of  a  particular  building.^^  Where  the  material  has 
been  purchased  and  used  in  the  construction  or  repair  of  a  par- 
ticular building  and  the  claimant  has  complied  with  the  law, 
the  law  indulges  the  presumption  that  the  material  was  fur- 
nished on  the  credit  of  the  building.^^  It  is  a  rebuttable  pre- 
sumption, however.-*' 

§  23.  Penalty  for  wrongful  use  of  material — Ohio  statute. — 
Section  3184c  of  the  Ohio  statute  provides  that  "Any  owner, 
contractor  or  sub-contractor  who  shall  purchase  materials  on 
credit,  and  represent  at  the  time  of  purchase  that  the  same 


IS  Colorado. — Tabor-Pierce  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  International  Trust 
Co.,  19  Colo.  App.  108,  75  Pac. 
150. 

Delaware. — Mulrine  v.  Wash- 
ington Lodge  No.  5,  L  O.  O.  P., 
6  Houst.  (Del.)  350;  McCartney 
V.  Buck,  8  Houst.  (Del.)  34,  12 
Atl.  717. 

Illinois. — Wetherill  v.  Ohlen- 
dorf,  61  111.  283. 

Pennsylvania.^  Spring  Brook 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Watkins,  26  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  199;  Green  v.  Thomp- 
son, 172  Pa.  St.  609,  33  Atl.  702. 

United  States. — Grant  v.  Strong, 
85  U.  S.  (18  Wall.)  623,  21  L.  Ed. 
859. 

19  Eufaula  Water  Co.  v.  Addy- 
ston  Pipe  &  Steel  Co.,  89  Ala. 
552,  8  So.  25;  Smith-Anthony 
Stove  Co.  V.  Spear,  2  Mo.  App. 
Rep'r.  1250,  65  Mo.  App.  87. 

Question  for  jury. — Whether 
the  materials  for  which  a  me- 
chanic's claim  has  been  filed 
were  furnished  on  the  credit  of 
the  building  or  that  of  the  con- 
tractor is  a  question  for  the 
jury.     It  is   not  necessary  for  a 


material  man  to  allege  in  his  lien 
or  to  prove  affirmatively  that  his 
materials  were  furnished  for  and 
entered  into  its  construction.  The 
burden  is  then  on  the  defendant 
to  show  that  they  were  furnished 
on  the  credit  of  the  contractor 
alone.  The  fact  that  the  mate- 
rials are  charged  on  the  plain- 
tiff's books  to  the  contractor 
alone  affords  some  slight  evi- 
dence that  they  were  furnished 
on  his  credit,  but  it  is  not  prima 
facie  evidence  that  his  credit  was 
relied  on  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
credit  of  the  building.  Hommel 
V.  Lewis,  104  Pa.  St.  465;  Frud- 
den  Lumber  Co.  v.  Kinnan,  117 
Iowa  93,  90  N.  W.  515. 

Delivery  of  part. — The  fact  that 
the  material  man  delivered  part 
of  the  materials  on  the  premises 
sought  to  be  charged  was  no  evi- 
dence that  they  were  sold  on  the 
credit  of  the  building.  Crane  Co. 
V.  Neel,  104  Mo.  App.  177,  77  S. 
W.  766. 

20  Green  v.  Thompson,  172  Pa. 
St.  613,  33  Atl.  702. 


57 


CONTRACT NECESSITY  FOR. 


[§24 


are  to  be  used  in  a  designated  building,  or  other  improvement, 
and  shall  thereafter  use,  or  cause  to  be  used,  the  said  mate- 
rials, in  the  construction  of  any  building  or  improvement  other 
than  that  designated,  without  the  written  consent  of  the  per- 
son of  whom  the  materials  were  purchased,  with  intent  to  de- 
fraud such  person,  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding 
five  hundred  dollars."-^ 

§  24.  Contract,  necessity  for. — While  the  courts  of  some  of 
the  states  have  upheld  as  constitutional,^  laws  giving  mate- 
rial men  and  sub-contractors  a  lien,  when  there  was  nothing 
due  the  contractor  under  the  contract  with  the  owner,  yet  no 
state  has  attempted  to  engraft  a  lien  on  a  man's  real  estate 
without  a  contract  either  express  or  implied,^  upon  the  part 
of  the  owner.2  This  contract  as  to  its  validity  and  scope  is 
construed  after  the  manner  of  ordinary  contracts.  There  must 
be  a  person  in  existence  to  make  the  contract,  and  such  per- 
son must  have  some  interest  or  ownership  in  the  property, 
and  he  must  be  capable  of  contracting.     This  contract  must 


21  97  Gen.  Laws  of  Ohio,  p.  499. 

1  See   §  4. 

2  Muldoon  V.  Pitt,  54  N.  Y.  272; 
Sherry  v.  Madler,  123  Wis.  621, 
101  N.  W.  1095. 

3  Arkansas. — Galbreath  v.  Da- 
vidson, 25  Ark.  490,  99  Am.  Dec. 
233. 

Georgia — Powers  v.  Armstrong, 
19  Ga.  427. 

Illinois. — Tracy  et  al.  v.  Rog- 
ers, 69  111.  664. 

Indiana. — Ogg  v.  Tate,  52  Ind. 
159. 

Iowa. — Redman  v.  Williamson. 
2   Iowa,   488. 

Kansas. — Doane  v.  Bever,  62 
Kan.  458,  65  Pac.  693. 

Massachnsetts. —  Peabody  v. 
Eastern  Methodist  Soc,  87  Mass. 
(87  Allen)    540. 


Michigan. — Wagar     v.    Briscoe, 

38  Mich.  587. 

Missouri. — Louisiana  &  Gulf 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Myers,  87  Mo.  App. 
671;  Badger  Lumber  Co.  v.  Stepp, 
157  Mo.  366,  57  S.  W.  1059. 

]Vew  York. — Muldoon  v.  Pitt, 
54  N.  Y.  269;  Dressel  v.  French, 
7  How.  Prac.  (N.  Y.)  350;  John- 
son V.  Alexander,  48  N.  Y.  S.  541, 
23  App.  Div.-  538. 

JVortli  Carolina. — Nicholson  v. 
Nichols,  115  N.  C.  200,  20  S.  E. 
294;  Thompson  v.  Taylor,  110  N. 
C.   70,  14   S.  E.   513. 

Oregon. — Sellwood  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Monnell,  26  Or.  267,  38  Pac.  66. 

Pennsylvania. — Long  v.  Black, 
5   Pa.  Co.   Ct.  R.   258. 

South  Carolina. — Gray  v.  Walk- 
er, 16  S.  Car.  143. 


25] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


58 


necessarily  control  many  features  connected  with  the  lien,  its 
existence  and  scope.  Some  statutes  instead  of  declaring-  that 
the  material  or  services  shall  be  furnished  or  performed  under 
a  contract  with  the  owner  use  the  expression  "by  the  consent 
of  the  owner."  This  practically  means  such  circumstances  as 
may  imply  a  contract.-* 

§  25.  Contract,  necessity  for  (continued). — A  married  wo- 
man's consent  to  a  contract  for  materials  to  be  used  on  her 
lands  will  not  be  implied  from  the  mere  fact  that  the  contract- 
ing person  was  her  husband.-^  In  such  cases  it  must  be  shown 
that  he  was  authorized  to  act  for  that  purpose  ;*5  it  is  not 
Tennessee — Gillispie     v.     Stan-      state.     She  contracted  in  her  own 


ton,  67  Tenn.  284. 

Utah.— Morrison  v.  Clark,  20 
Utah  432,  59  Pac.  235. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,  §  55. 

■i  California.—  San  Francisco 
Pav.  Co.  V.  Fairfield,  134  Cal.  220, 
66  Pac.  255. 

Connecticut.— Huntley  v.  Holt, 
58    Conn.    449. 

Illinois. — Brokaw  v.  Tyler,  91 
111.  App.   148. 

Massachusetts. — Stevens  v.  In- 
habitants, 114  Mass.  476. 

Missouri.— Sibley  v.  Casey,  6 
Mo.  164. 

IVebraska. — Tidball  v.  Holyoke, 
70  Neb.  726,  97  N.  W.  1019;  Bloom- 
er V.  Nolan,  36  Neb.  51,  53  N.  W. 
1039,   38  Am.   St.   Rep.   690. 

Xew  York. — McGraw  v.  God- 
frey, 16  Abb.  Prac.  (N.  S.)  (N.  Y.) 
358. 

Texas.— Warren  v.  Smith,  44 
Tex.   245. 

Wisconsin.- Wheeler  v.  Hall, 
41  Wis.  447. 

A  son  allowed  his  mother  to  oc- 
cupy his  house  for  three  years 
while    he    was    absent    from    the 


name  for  the  erection  of  another 
house  on  the  lot,  representing 
that  it  was  her  own.  The  son 
had  previously  authorized  her  to 
make  other  improvements  on  the 
lot,  and  had  sent  her  money  to 
pay  for  them.  He  refused  to  pay 
for  the  house,  and  would  not  let 
the  builder  remove  it,  but  took 
possession  and  rented  it.  The 
builder  could  not  enforce  a  me- 
chanic's lien.  Sheer  v.  Cum- 
mings,  80  Tex.  29,  16  S.  W.  37. 

The  consent  intended  by  the 
law  is  an  absolute  consent,  con- 
sistent with  the  right  to  do  the 
work  on  the  credit  of  the  build- 
ing. McClintock  v.  Criswell,  67 
Pa.   (17  P.  F.  Smith)  183. 

5  Lyon  V.  Champion,  62  Conn. 
75,  25  Atl.  392;  Campbell  v.  Ja- 
cobson,  145  111.  389,  34  N.  E.  39. 
If  the  deed  had  not  been  on  rec- 
ord it  might  have  been  different. 
Schwartz  v.  Saunders,  46  111.  18: 
Fetter  v.  Wilson,  51  Ky.  (12  B. 
Mon.)    90. 

G  Schmidt  v.  Joseph,  65  Ala. 
475;  Groth  v.  Stahl,  3  Colo.  App. 
8,    30    Pac.   1051;    Dearie  v.   Mar- 


59 


CONTRACT MUST   BE   VALID. 


[§25 


enough  that  the  wife  merely  allows  the  work  to  be  doneJ  A 
power  to  bind  the  wife  is  sometimes  presumed  where  it  is 
shown  that  she  gave  her  husband  full  charge  of  her  estate 
and  allowed  him  to  collect  and  appropriate  the  rent.^  In  some 
states  a  lien  cannot  attach  to  a  homestead  except  by  express 
agreement  and  a  compliance  with  all  the  statutory  require- 
ments.^ Another  provision  is  that  a  wife  cannot  be  bound, 
unless  she  so  agrees  in  writing.^*^  But  where  such  matters 
are  required  in  order  to  bind  a  homestead,  generally  the  wife's 
consent  is  not  required. ^^  And  in  all  cases  if  she  wishes  to  de- 
feat the  lien  she  must  not  stand  by  and  allow  work  to  pro- 
ceed.^2  The  contract  with  a  lessor  will  not  be  implied  merely 
because  he  consents  to  improvements  which  are  of  no  advan- 


tin,  78  Pa.  55.  If  authorized  to 
build  at  his  "own  expense,"  she 
is  not  bound.  Huntley  v.  Holt, 
58  Conn.  445,  20  Atl.  469,  9  L.  R. 
A.  111. 

7Garnett  v.  Berry,  3  Mo.  App. 
197;  Lyon  v.  Champion,  62  Conn. 
75,  25  Atl.  392. 

Proof  of  Agency. — So  far  as  the 
record  shows,  the  lot  was  bought 
by  the  husband  and  with  his 
money,  and  the  title  put  by  him 
in  his  wife's  name  without  her 
knowledge.  He  made  the  con- 
tract with  Wheelon  &  Hall  for 
the  express  purpose  of  building 
a  home  for  his  family,  and  at  the 
time  that  the  contract  was  made 
and  the  work  done  it  is  quite  im- 
probable that  Mrs.  Stahl  knew 
she  was  the  owner  of  the  lots. 
Under  these  circumstances  no 
agency  can  be  implied.  What 
the  case  contains  to  show  her 
knowledge  that  her  husband  was 
going  to  build,  that  the  work  was 
done   and  that  she  took  a   lively 


wifely  interest  in  the  progress  of 
the  labor,  does  not  amount  to 
that  proof  of  agency  which  the 
law  requires  when  the  man  seeks 
to  charge  it  with  a  lien  for  sup- 
plies which  were  furnished  under 
a  contract  entered  into  with  one 
who  was  not  the  owner  of  the 
property.  Groth  v.  Stahl,  3  Colo. 
App.  8,  30  Pac.  1051. 

8  Kline  v.  Perry,  51  Mo.  App. 
422;  Keller  v.  Struck,  31  Minn. 
446,  18  N.  W.  280;  Coleman  v. 
Ballandi,  22  Minn.  144;  Merchant 
V.  Perez,  11  Tex.  20. 

9  Cameron  v.  Marshall,  65 
Tex.  7. 

10  Cameron  v.  Gebbard,  85  Tex. 
610;  Lyon  v.  Ozee,  66  Tex.  96; 
Walker  v.  House  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
24  S.  W.  82;  Ricker  v.  Schadt,  5 
Tex.  Civ.  App.   460,  23   S.  W.  907. 

11  Miner  v.  Moore,  53  Tex.  224; 
Tinsley  v.  Boykin,  46  Tex.  599. 

12  Phelps  Biglow  Windmill  Co. 
v.  Shay,  32  Neb.  19,  48  N.  W.  896. 


25] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


60 


tage  to  him. 13  jf  ^g  j^^s  no  knowledge,  he  cannot  consent  ;i^ 
but  if  he  participates  in  the  construction/^  or  in  any  way  au- 
thorizes the  work  to  be  done,  a  contract  with  him  will  be 
implied.i^  A  purchaser  to  make  a  binding  contract  must  have 
some  kind  of  title.^''^  The  death  of  the  owner  while  the  work 
is  being  done,  and  before  the  lien  is  perfected,  terminates  the 
contract  and  the  lien  fails  unless  the  statute  expressly  pro- 
vides otherwise. 1^  However,  in  some  instances  liens  are  up- 
held where  the  contract  was  completed  after  the  death  of  the 
owner  with  the  consent  of  the  administrator.^^  Consequential 
damages  that  result  from  a  breach  of  the  contract  are  not  to 
be  considered  as  part  of  the  contract  and  will  not  give  a  lien.^o 
So  the  protesting  of  a  draft  will  not  be  included  in  the  con- 
tract, nor  a  loss  of  time  to  men,  or  delay,  risk,  and  inconve- 
nience to  contractor.2i     Extra  work,  outside  the  fair  scope  of 


13  Hoffman  v.  Laurans,  IS  La. 
(O.  S.)  70;  Havens  v.  West  Side 
Electric  Light  &  Power  Co.,  66 
Hun.    626,    20   N.   Y.    Supp.    764. 

14  Hanson  v.  News  Publishing 
Co.,  97  Me.  99,  53  Atl.  990. 

15  Havens  v.  West  Side  Electric 
Light  &  Power  Co.,  66  Hun  626, 
20  N.  Y.  Supp.  764. 

16  Penfield  v.  Harris,  7  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  659,  27  S.  W.  762;  Wilker- 
son  v.  Rust,  57  Ind.  172;  Hoffman 
V.  Laurans,  18  La.  (O.  S.)  70; 
Sewall  v.  Duplessis,  2  Rob.  (La.) 
66. 

1"  A  mechanic's  lien  can  be  en- 
forced against  the  owner  of  a  lot 
who  knowingly  suffers  a  verbal 
sale  of  it  through  an  agent  to  a 
person,  and  the  erection  of  a 
building  thereon  by  the  purchaser 
pursuant  to  such  sale.  West  v. 
Pullen,  88  111.  App.  620;  Dustin 
V.  Crosby,  75  Me.  75;  Heminway 
V.  Cutler,  51  Me.  407;  Contra 
Pullen    V.    Bell,    40    Me.    314;    Et- 


tridge  v.  Bassett,  136  Mass.  314; 
Dodge  v.  Romain  (N.  J.  L.),  18 
Atl.  114;  Rossi  v.  MacKellar 
(Com.  PI.)   13  N.  Y.  Supp.  827. 

IS  IMeyers  v.  Bennett,  7  Daly 
(N.  Y.)  471;  Brown  v.  Zeiss,  9 
Daly    (N.  Y.)    240. 

19  Boynton  v.  Westbrook,  74  Ga. 
68;  Wagner  v.  Mambeck,  18  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  R.  471. 

In  Williams  v.  Webb,  2  Disn. 
(Ohio)  430,  it  was  held  that  the 
death  of  the  owner,  before  the 
lien  was  taken  did  not  prevent 
the  perfection  of  the  lien.  And 
in  Pifer  v.  Ward,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
252,  it  was  held  that  if  it  accrues 
in  the  lifetime  of  the  owner  it 
could  be  enforced. 

20  Dennistoun  v.  McAllister,  4 
E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  729;  Hale  v. 
Johnson,  6  Kan.  137. 

21  Bradbury  v.  Idaho  &  0.  Land 
Imp.  Co.,  2  Idaho  221,  10  Pac. 
620;  Lee  v.  Brayton,  18  R.  I.  232, 
26   Atl.   256. 


61  CONTRACT  WITH  OWNER.  [§  26 

the  contract,  cannot  be  included^^  unless  such  extras  were 
necessary  to  the  completion  of  the  work  and  hence  impliedly 
included  in  the  original  contract.^^  Ordinarily  the  contract 
is  not  to  be  governed  by  the  specifications,  although  they  may  be 
consulted  in  its  interpretation.^^  Equity  cannot  supply  or  do 
away  with  the  necessity  of  the  contract.^^  A  contract  made 
with  a  company  not  in  existence  at  the  time  it  was  entered 
into,  cannot  be  the  basis  of  a  lien.2<5 

§  26.  Contract  with  owner. — It  is  not  only  necessary  that 
there  be  a  contract,  but  the  contract  must  be  with  a  person 
who  has  some  kind  of  an  ownership.  This  phase  of  the  sub- 
ject was  referred  to  when  we  considered  the  property  subject  to  a 
lien.^  Unless  the  evidence  shows  that  the  person  making  the 
contract  had  some  kind  of  an  ownership  recognized  by  the  law 
as  such,  the  lien  must  fail.^*^  In  this  connection  it  has  been  held 
that  possession  is  a  species  of  legal  title,  though  of  the  lowest, 
and  it  alone  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  highest  estate  in  the 
property  and  is  good  against  all  the  world  except  the  true 
owners  and  will  support  a  lien.^     In  some  cases  it  has  been 

22  Brown  v.  Lowell,  79  111.  484;  i  See  §  10. 

Wetmore  v.  Marsh,  81  Iowa   677,  i''  Dierks    v.    Walrod,    66    Iowa 

47  N.  W.  1021;  Mulrey  v.  Barrow,  354,  23  N.  W.  751;  Meade  Plumb- 

93   Mass.    (11   Allen)    152;    Pullis  ing,    Heating    &    Lighting    Co.    v. 

V.  Hoffman,  28  Mo.  App.  666;  Mor-  Irwin,  77  Neb.  385,  109  N.  W.  391; 

gan  V.  Stevens,  6  Abb.  N.  C.    (N.  Eccles  Lumber  Co.  v.  Martin,  31 

Y.)  357;  Gier  v.  Daiber,  148  Mich.  Utah   241,  87   Pac.   713. 

190,    111    N.    W.    773,    14    Detroit  See   Dec.    &   Am.    Dig.    tit.    Me- 

Leg.  N.  183.  chanics'  Liens,  §  56. 

23  Rush  V.  Able,  90  Pa.  153.  2  Dakin    v.    Lecklider,    19    Ohio 

24  Putting  in  a  catch  basin  is  Cir.  Ct.  R.  254,  10  O.  C.  D.  308. 
not  included.  Lee  v.  Brayton,  Where  constitution  grants  liens, 
18  R.  I.  232.  26  Atl.  256.  it  has  been  allowed  on  the  build- 

25  Wright  V.  Meyer  (Tex.  Civ.  ing,  even  if  the  person  contracting 
App.),  25  S.  W.  1122;  Chicago  for  same  falsely  represented  him- 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Dillon,  13  Colo.  self  as  the  owner.  Linck  v.  Mei- 
App.  196,  56  P.  989.  keljohn,  2  Cal.  App.  506,  84  Pac. 

26  Littleton    Sav.    Bank    v.    Os-  309. 
ceola  Land  Co.,  76  Iowa   660,   39 

N.  W.  201. 


26] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


62 


held  that  constructive  possession  will  suffice.^  But  it  should 
be  observed  that  this  is  only  sufficient  where  no  better  title 
is  shown,  and  the  person  purchasing  under  a  foreclosure  of 
the  lien  on  this  kind  of  a  title  will  only  get  wdiat  the  per- 
son contracting  had.  There  may  be  cases  where  neither  possession 
nor  legal  title  will  conclusively  show  ownership,  as  where 
the  land  is  sold  while  the  work  is  in  progress.^  A  mere  mo- 
mentary possession  is  not  sufficient  to  give  a  lien  precedence 
over  a  purchase  money  mortgage.''  The  title  of  an  executor^ 
or  guardian,  without  an  order  of  court,'^  a  widow  before  dower 
is  assigned,*  a  purchaser  at  judicial  sale,  before  deed  is  deliv- 
ered,^ an  insurance  company  rebuilding  a  house  to  discharge 
their  liability  for  one  burned, ^*^  heirs  before  the  death  of  their 
ancestor, 11  and  where  under  some  statutes  the  estate  is  in  ad- 
ministration, is  not  ordinarily  sufficient  to  support  a  lien.i^ 
As  previously  stated, ^-'"^  equitable  ownership  is  sufficient,!^ 
but  not  a  mere  naked  equitable  right. i'*  A  contracting  per- 
son in  possession  has  been  held  to  have  sufficient  ownership 
to  give  a  lien.^-^  If  a  leasehold  interest  is  to  be  held  subject  to  a 
lien  the  lessee  must  make  the  contract,  within  the  terms  of  the 
lease. 1^  Under  some  statutes,  however,  a  landlord's  estate 
has  been  held  liable  for  contracts  made  by  a  tenant,  when  the 

I. 


3  Prutzman  v.  Bushong,  83  Pa. 
526. 

4  Empire  Land  &  Canal  Co.  v. 
Engley,  18  Colo.  388,  33  Pac.  153. 

5  Clark  V.  Butler,  32  N.  J.  Eq. 
664. 

6  San  Francisco  Pav.  Co.  v. 
Fairfield,  134  Cal.  220,  66  Pac. 
255. 

^Copley  V.  O'Neil,  39  How. 
Prac.    (N.  Y.)    41. 

8  Ermul  V.  Kullok,  3  Kan.  499. 

9  Robbins  v.  Arendt  (Com.  PI.) 
4  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  196,  23  N.  Y. 
Supp.   1019. 

10  Bruner  v.  Sheik,  9  "Watts  & 
S.    (Pa.)   119. 


11  Watson    V.    Woods,    3    R. 
226. 

12  San  Francisco  Pav.  Co.  v. 
Fairfield,  134  Cal.  220,  66  Pac. 
255. 

13  Atkins  V.  Little,  17  Minn.  342; 
Giesberg  v.  Mutual  Bldg.  &c. 
Assn.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  60  S.  W. 
478. 

1-1  Griffin  v.  Seymour,  15  Colo. 
App.    487,    63    Pac.    809. 

1j  Colman  v.  Goodnow,  36  j\Iinn. 
9,  29  N.  W.  338,  1  Am.  St.  632;  An- 
derson V.  Berg,  174  Mass.  404,  54 
N.  E.  877. 

10  Newell  v.  Haworth,  66  Pa. 
St.  363;   Pickel  Marble  &  Granite 


63 


CONTRACT    WITH    OWNER. 


[§26 


landlord  knowingly  permitted  the  improvements  to  be  made.^'^ 
While  a  vendor's  lien  is  not  an  ownership  sufficient  to  sup- 
port the  contract, 1*  a  vendee  in  possession  has  been  held  to 
be  an  owner  within  the  statute. ^^  A  tenant  in  common  in  pos- 
session has  sufficient  ownership,2'J  and  if  the  other  tenant  con- 
sents, the  entire  estate  will  be  held.^i  Where  the  doctrine 
of  community  property  applies,  the  husband  has  sufficient 
ownership.22  A  partner  may  bind  a  partnership.^^  A  person  in 
possession,  holding  title  in  trust  for  another,  has  an  owner- 
ship sufficient  to  support  the  contract,^^  though  the  naked 
title  is  in  another.-^  In  some  few  states  where  the  owner  is 
held  for  the  acts  of  the  lessee,  the  right  to  the  lien  will  be 
supported  if  the  contract  is  made  with  the  owner  of  the  build- 
ing.26  And  if  a  person  does  not  own  the  property  at  the 
time   he   makes   the   contract,    but   afterwards    becomes    such 


Co.  V.  Handlan,  85  Mo.  App.  313; 
Central  of  Georgia  Ry.  Co.  v.  Shi- 
ver, 125  Ga.  218,  53  S.  E.  610. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,  §  58. 

17  Wells  V.  Sherwin,  92  111.  App. 
282. 

18  Griffin  v.  Seymour,  15  Colo. 
App.  487,  63  Pac.  809. 

19  Beck  V.  Catholic  University 
of  America,  62  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
599,  71  N.  Y.  Supp.  370;  Salzer 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Claflin,  16  N.  Dak. 
601,  113  N.  W.  1036. 

20  Keller  v.  Denmead,  68  Pa. 
St.  449;  Seely  v.  Neill,  37  Colo. 
198,  86  Pac.  334;  can  only  bind 
his  own  interest  however. 

21  Dalton  V.  Tindolph,  87  Ind. 
490;  Wilson  v.  Logue,  131  Ind. 
191,  30  N.  E.  1079,  31  Am.  St. 
426. 

22  Littell  &c.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Mil- 
ler, 3  Wash.  St.  480,  28  Pac.  1035; 


Douthitt  V.  MacCulsky,  11  Wash. 
601,   40   Pac.   186. 

2o  Christian  v.  Illinois  Mallea- 
ble Iron  Co.,  92  111.  App.  320; 
Van  Court  v.  Bushnell,  21  111.  624. 

2^  Springer  v.  Kroeschell,  161 
111.  358,  43  N.  E.  1084;  Bartlett 
V.  Mahlum,  88  Iowa  329,  55  N.  W. 
514;  Hall  v.  Bullock  (Ky.),  97  S. 
W.  351,  29  Ky.  L.  1254. 

25  Weaver  v.  Sheeler,  124  Pa. 
St.  473,  17  Atl.  17,  23  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)  366;  Cheatham  v.  Rowland, 
92   N.   Car.    340. 

20  Colorado.  —  Stevenson  v. 
Woodward,  3  Cal.  App.  754,  86 
Pac.  990  • 

Iowa. — Lane  v.  Snow,  66  Iowa 
544,  24  N.  W.  35. 

Minnesotsi. — Benjamin  v.  Wil- 
son, 34  Minn.  517,  26  N.  W.  725. 

Missouri. — Seaman  v.  Paddock, 
51   Mo.   App.   465. 

?few  York. — Muldoon  v.  Pitt,  4 
Daly  (N.  Y.)   105. 


26] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


64 


owner  as  is  recognized  by  law,  the  property  will  be  subject 
to  the  lien.2'^  In  such  case  the  party  must  either  be  in  pos- 
session or  must  show  that  the  material  was  purchased  for 
that  particular  building,-^  or  it  must  appear  that  the  owner 
consented  to  the  continuance  of  the  work,^^  or  assumed  the 
debt.^o  A  change  of  ownership  during  the  continuance  of  the 
work  will  not  deprive  the  person  performing  the  work  of  his 
lien,^^  for  such  materials  as  were  included  in  the  original  con- 
tract.22  jf  a  purchaser  is  made  aware  of  the  conditions  of  the 
contract  and  the  owner  and  contractor  know  this  and  there- 
after make  changes,  the  purchaser's  rights  will  not  be  af- 
fected.^^  While  a  lessee  has  an  ownership  sufficient  to  sup- 
port the  contract,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  his  interest 
only  is  liable  to  the  lien.^'*  The  landlord  may  so  act  as  to  make 


27  Colorado. — Tritch  v.  Norton, 
10  Colo.  337,  15  Pac.  680. 

Kansas. — Jarvis-Conklin  Mortg. 
Trust  Co.  V.  Sutton,  46  Kan.  166, 
26   Pac.   406. 

Massaclnisetts. —  Corbett  v. 
Greenlaw,    117    Mass.    167. 

New  York. — INIcGraw  v.  God- 
frey, 16  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  (N.  Y.) 
358. 

Texas. — Schultze  v.  Alamo  Ice 
&c.  Co.,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  236;  21 
S.  W.  160. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,  §  59. 

2S  Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Pretz, 
51  Kan.  134,  32  Pac.  908;  Howard 
V.  Veazie,  69  Mass.   (3  Gray)   233. 

29  Bell  V.  Cooper,  26  Miss.  650; 
Wagar  v.  Briscoe,  38  Mich.  587; 
De  Ronde  v.  Olmstead,  5  Daly  (N. 
Y.)   398,  47  How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   175. 

30  Mountain  City  Market  House 
&c.  Assn.  V.  Kearns,  103  Pa.  St. 
403. 

31  Colorado. — Mellor  v.  Valen- 
tine, 3  Colo.  255. 


ludiana. —  Jeffersonville  Water 
Supply  Co.  V.  Riter,  138  Ind.  170, 

37  N.  E.  652. 

Maryland.— IMiller  v.  Barroll,  14 
Md.  173. 

jVew  Jersey. — Gordon  v.  Torrey, 
15  N.  J.  Eq.  112,  82  Am.  Dec.  273. 

New  York. — Gross  v.  Daly,  5 
Daly  (N.  Y.)  540;  Rollin  v.  Cross, 
45  N.  Y.  766. 

32  Heath  v.  Tyler,  44  Md.  312. 

33  Soule   V.   Dawes,   7   Cal.   575. 
3  4  Missouri. — Squires     v.     Fith- 

ian,  27  Mo.  134 ;  McMahon  v.  Vick- 
ery,  4  Mo.  App.  225. 
Nebraska. — Waterman  v.  Stout, 

38  Neb.  396,  56  N.  W.  987. 

New  York. — Jones  v.  Crumb,  53 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  631,  6  N.  Y.  Supp. 
338. 

North  Dakota. — Salzer  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Claflin,  16  N.  Dak.  601,  113 
N.  W.  1036. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Anshutz  v. 
M'Clelland,  5  Watts  (Pa.)  487. 

Tennessee. — Alley  v.  Lanier,  41 
Tenn.   (1  Cold.)   540. 


65 


CONTRACT   WITH   OWNER. 


27 


the  entire  estate  liable.^^  As  a  matter  of  course  where  the  lien 
is  on  the  building  separate  from  the  land,  it  will  attach  to 
the  building,  even  though  the  landlord  did  not  consent.^'^ 
A  mortgagor  is  usually  an  owner  within  the  meaning  of  the 
statute,  but  he  cannot  be  considered  such  after  a  decree  of 
foreclosure  has  been  entered.^'^  The  interest  of  a  pre-existing 
mortgagee  cannot  be  affected  by  the  contract.^^  Where  the 
title  is  in  the  mortgagee  his  ownership  is,  of  course,  sufficient 
to  support  the  lien.^^ 

§  27.  Contract  with  the  owner  (continued). — As  before 
stated,  the  mere  fact  that  a  person  is  in  lawful  possession  and 
control  of  the  land  will  not  make  him  an  owner  sufificient  to 
give  a  lien.^  However,  if  the  actual  owner  permits  a  person 
in  possession  to  exercise  ownership,  the  latter  becomes  prima 
facie  an  owner  and  in  some  cases  may  make  the  property  liable.^ 


35  Leismann  v.  Lovely,  45  Wis. 
420;  Lauer  v.  Bandow,  43  Wis. 
556,  28  Am.  Rep.  571;  Stetson- 
Post  Mill  Co.  V.  Brown,  21  Wash. 
619,  59  Pac.  507,  75  Am.  St.  862; 
Stevens  v.  Burnham,  62  Neb.  672, 
87  N.  W.  546. 

36Lynam  v.  King,  9  Ind.  3. 
Forbes  v.  Mosquito  Fleet  Yacht 
Club,  175  Mass.  432,  56  N.  E.  615; 
Ombony  v.  Jones,  21  Barb.  (N.  Y) 
520.  The  lessor  in  a  lease  which 
provides  certain  repairs  shall  be 
done  by  lessee,  and  the  cost  de- 
ducted from  rent  is  not  the 
owner,  as  regards  persons  em- 
ployed by  lessee.  Garring  v. 
Hunt,  27  Ont.  R.  149. 

37  Davis  V.  Connecticut  Mut. 
Life  Ins.  Co.,  84  111.  508. 

38Broman  v.  Young,  35  Hun 
(N.   Y.)    173. 

39  Price  V.  Merritt,  55  Mo.  App. 
640. 

5 


1  Arkansas. — Miller  Hardwood 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Wilson,  56  Ai-k. 
380,   19   S.   W.  974. 

Colorado.— Empire  Land  &  Ca- 
nal Co.  V.  Engley,  18  Colo.  388, 
33   Pac.   153. 

Illinois — Tracy  v.  Rogers,  69 
111.  662;  Underbill  v.  Corwin,  15 
111.   556. 

Massachusetts.  —  Fletcher  v. 
Stedman,  159  Mass.  124,  34  N.  E. 
183. 

Mississippi. — Hawley    v.    Hender- 
son, 34  Miss.  261,  See  §  44. 

~  Chambers  v.  Benoist,  25  Mo. 
App.  520;  Gaskill  v.  Davis,  63 
Ga.  645;  Dakin  v.  Lecklider,  19 
Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  254,  10  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.  308.  See  Dec.  and  Am.  Dig. 
tit  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  60.  Under 
the  statute  of  Utah,  one  who 
takes  possession  of  land  for  the 
purpose  of  constructing  a  ditch  is 
an  owner.     Bear  Lake,  etc.,  Wat- 


27] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


66 


A  purchaser  in  possession,^  under  an  executory  con- 
tract, is  an  owner.^  Of  course  the  contract  must  be  a  legal 
one,^  but  as  possession  obviates  the  necessity  of  its  being  in 
writing,  under  the  statute  of  frauds,  a  verbal  contract  is  gen- 
erally held  sufficient.^  Even  if  the  contract  is  invalid,  if  the 
purchaser  afterwards  gets  possession  he  is  an  owner  within 
the  meaning  of  the  statute.'^  But  there  must  be  some  element 
of  title  besides  mere  possession  to  bring  such  a  person  within 
the  statute.^  In  the  case  of  purchasers  in  possession  under 
their  contract  to  purchase,  it  is  generally  held  that  the  lien 
does  not  take  precedence  over  the  claim  of  the  vendor.  The  me- 
chanic or  material  man  is  bound  to  know  what  title  the  purchaser 
has. 9    As  a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that  the  purchaser  can- 


erworks  &  Irr.  Co.  v.  Garland, 
164  U.  S.  1,  41  L.  ed.  327,  17  Sup. 
Ct.  7. 

3  Mitchell  Vance  Co.  v.  Daiker 
(Com.  PL),  19  N.  Y.  Supp.  378, 
46  N.  Y.  St.  189;  Blight  v.  Ray,  23 
Ont.  R.  415;  Reggin  v.  Manes,  22 
Ont.   R.   443. 

4  loTva. — Monroe  v.  West,  12 
Iowa  119,  79  Am.  Dec.  524. 

£ansas. — Mulvane  v.  Chicago 
Lumber  Co.,  56  Kan.  675,  44  Pac. 
613;  Pierce  v.  Osborn,  40  Kan. 
168,  19  Pac.  656. 

Missonri. — Sawyer-Austin  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Clark,  172  Mo.  558,  73 
S.  W.  137. 

Jfew  Jersey. — Scott  v.  Reeve,  10 
N.  J.  L.  12. 

South  Dakota. — Pinkerton  v. 
Le  Beau,  3  S.  Dak.  440,  54  N.  W. 
97. 

Utah. — Carey-Lombard  Co.  v. 
Partridge,  10  Utah  322,  37  Pac. 
572. 

Contra.  Hayes  v.  Fessenden, 
106  Mass.  228;  Long  Island  Brick 
Co.    V.    Arnold,    18    R.    I.    455,    28 


Atl.  801;  Faber  v.  Muir,  27  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  27,  64  S.  W.  938;  Bar- 
nard V.  Adorjan,  116  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)   535,  101  N.  Y.  Supp.  502. 

5  Wilkins  v.  Litchfield,  69  Iowa 
465,  29  N.  W.  447;  HufE  v.  Jolly, 
41  Kan.  537,  21  Pac.  646;  Conner 
V.  Lewis,  16  Me.  268;  Althen  v. 
Tarbox,  48  Minn.  18,  50  N.  W. 
1018,  31  Am.  St.  616. 

6  Meyer  Bros.  Drug  Co.  v. 
Brown,  46  Kan.  543,  26  Pac.  1019; 
Crocker  v.  Currier,  65  Wis.  662, 
27  N.  W.  825;  Contra.  Gray  v. 
Carleton,  35  Me.  481. 

"  Weaver  v.  Sheeler,  124  Pa. 
473,  17  Atl.  17,  23  W.  N.  C.  366. 

s  Johnson  v.  Pike,  35  Me.  291; 
Brown  v.  Morison,  5  Ark.  217. 

0  Georgia, — Callaway  v.  Free- 
man, 29  Ga.  408. 

Michigan. — Scales  v.  Griffin,  2 
Doug.    (Mich.)    54. 

New  York. — Bernard  v.  Adjo- 
ran,  43  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  276,  88  N. 
Y.  Supp.  859;  Beck  v.  Catholic 
University  of  America,  172  N.  Y. 
387,   60   L.   R.   A.   315;    Schnaufer 


67 


CONTRACT STIPULATIONS    IN, 


[§27 


not  subject  property  to  a  mechanic's  lien  to  the  prejudice  of 
the  legal  owner,!*^'  nor  can  the  vendee  and  vendor  by  secret 
stipulations  between  themselves  prejudice  the  rights  of  the 
lienor.ii  Where  a  contract  between  vendor  and  vendee  stip- 
ulates that  the  vendee  shall  erect  certain  buildings,  this  puts 
the  vendee  in  the  position  of  an  owner,  and  he  may  subject 


V.  Ahr,  53  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  299,  103 
N.  Y.  Supp.  195. 

Pennsylvania — Dietrich  v.  Crab- 
tree,  8  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  418,  7  Leg. 
&  Ins.  Rep.  125. 

Texas. — Galveston  Exhibition 
Assn.  V.  Perkins,  80  Tex.  62,  15  S. 
W.  633. 

10  Pinkerton  v.  Le  Beau,  3  S. 
Dak.  440,  54  N.  W.  97;  Scales  v. 
Griffin,  2  Doug.   (Mich.)    54. 

11  Malmgren  v.  Phinney,  50 
Minn.  457,  52  N.  W.  915,  18  L.  R. 
A.  753;  Henderson  v.  Connelly, 
123  111.  98,  14  N.  E.  1,  5  Am.  St. 
490;  Garland  v.  Van  Rensselaer, 
71  Hun  (N.  Y.)  2,  24  N.  Y.  Supp. 
781. 

What  stipulations  binding. — S. 
entered  into  an  agreement  to  sell 
certain  lots  to  J.  on  credit,  which 
agreement  provided  that  J.  was  to 
build  a  house  on  the  lots,  and 
when  the  house  was  inclosed  S. 
was  to  convey  to  J.  when  J.  was 
authorized  to  make  certain  mort- 
gages. It  was  also  stipulated 
that  until  the  deed  and  mortgages 
were  made,  as  provided,  the  legal 
and  equitable  title  should  remain 
in  S.  and  that  J.  could  not  sub- 
ject the  property  to  any  liens. 
The  deed  and  mortgage  were 
made  as  provided  in  the  contract, 
but  some  time  prior  to  their  exe- 
cution J.  purchased  from  a  lum- 
ber company  material  for  use  in 


the  construction  of  the  house,  but 
did  not  pay  for  the  same,  and  the 
lumber  company  filed  a  statement 
for  a  lien  on  the  lots  against  J. 
as  owner.  Held,  that  the  con- 
tract under  which  J.  held,  limit- 
ed his  interest  and  ownership  and 
his  right  to  create  liens  on  the 
lots,  and  that  the  lien  of  the  lum- 
ber company  was  subordinate  to 
the  mortgage  liens  given  in  pur- 
suance of  the  contract.  Chicago 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Schweiter,  45  Kan. 
207,  25   Pac.  592. 

Mere  knowledge  of  vendor  in- 
sufficient— "F.  sells  a  town  lot  to 
R.  and  S.  and  takes  their  notes 
for  the  purchase  money,  giving 
them  a  bond  to  make  title  when 
the  money  is  paid.  The  vendees 
go  into  possession,  and  employ  C. 
to  make  certain  improvements; 
C.  files  and  records  his  mechanic's 
lien,  and  sues  and  recovers  judg- 
ment on  his  claim  against  R.  and 
S.  In  the  meantime  the  purchas- 
ers finding  they  are  unable  to  pay, 
agree  to  rescind  the  contract,  tak- 
ing up  their  notes  and  surrender- 
ing to  P.  his  bond  for  title.  The 
lot  is  levied  on  by  the  fi.  fa.,  in 
favor  of  C.  against  R.  and  S., 
and  claimed  by  F.  Held  that  the 
property  is  not  subject  to  the 
debt,  notwithstanding  F.  had 
knowledge  of  the  work  while  it 
was  being  done,  and  made  no  ob- 


^27] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN, 


68 


the  entire  interest  to  a  lien.^^  j^  such  cases  the  fact  that 
the  vendee  forfeited  his  contract  will  not  absolve  the  prop- 
erty from  liability  to  the  lien.^^  Where  the  contract  stipulated 
that  a  mortgage  should  be  given  for  the  unpaid  purchase 
money,  the  lien  will  not  be  prior  to  such  mortgage.^'*  The 
fact  that  the  owner  advances  money  to  a  purchaser  to  build, 
will  not  give  to  the  latter  the  ownership  required  by  stat- 
ute.^^  Whatever  right  the  purchaser  has,  however,  is  subject 
to  the  lien.i'^  Ground  rent  has  in  some  cases  been  held  to  be 
sufficient  to  confer  the  required  ownership  on  a  purchaser.^" 


jection.        Callaway    v.    Freeman, 

29  Ga.  408. 

Co-operate  in  plans. — Guion  v. 
Ryckman,  77  Neb.  833,  110  N.  W. 
759. 

12  Colorado.— Shaplelgh  v.  Hull, 
21  Colo.  419,  41  Pac.  1108. 

Illinois. — Paulsen  v.  Manske, 
126  111.  72,  18  N.  E.  275,  9  Am. 
St.   532n. 

Minnesota.— Hill  v.  Gill,  40 
Minn.  441,  42  N.  W.  294. 

Massachusetts. — Borden  v.  Mer- 
cer, 163  Mass.  7,  39  N.  E.  413;  Mc- 
Cue   V.   Whitwell,   156   Mass.    205, 

30  N.  E.  1134;  Carew  v.  Stubbs, 
155  Mass.  549,  30  N.  E.  219;  Davis 
V.  Humphrey,  112  Mass.  309;  Hil- 
ton V.  Merrill,  106  Mass.  528. 

Missouri. — O'Leary  v.  Roe,  45 
Mo.  App.   567. 

Nebraska. — Sheehy  v.  Fulton, 
38  Neb.  691,  57  N.  W.  395,  41  Am. 
St.  767. 

New  Jersey. — Young  v.  Wilson, 
44  N.  J.  L.  157. 

New  York. — Schmalz  v.  Mead, 
125  N.  Y.  188,  26  N.  E.  251;  Hack- 
ett  V.  Badeau,  63  N.  Y.  476;  Hart 
V.  Wheeler,  1  Th.  &  C.  (N.  Y.) 
403;  McDermott  v.  Palmer,  11 
Barb.    (N.  Y.)    9;    Hobby  v.   Day, 


51  Hun  (N.  Y.)  644,  3  N.  Y.  Supp. 
900;  Garland  v.  Van  Rensselaer, 
71  Hun  (N.  Y.)  2,  24  N.  Y.  Supp. 
781. 

Wisconsin.  —  Edwards,  etc., 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Mosher,  88  Wis. 
672,   60   N.   W.    264. 

13  Henderson  v.  Connelly,  123 
111.  98,  14  N.  E.  1,  5  Am.  St.  490. 
On  building  alone,  not  on  land. 
Jameson  v.  Gile,  98  Iowa  490,  67 
N.  W.  396;  Irish  v.  O'Hanlon,  34 
Neb.  786,  52  N.  W.  695;  Pinker- 
ton  V.  Le  Beau,  3  S.  Dak.  440, 
54  N.  W.  97;  Schnaufer  v.  Ahr,  53 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  299,  103  N.  Y.  Supp. 
195. 

14  Shearer  v.  Wilder,  56  Kan. 
252,  43  Pac.  224. 

15  McGinniss  v.  Purrington,  43 
Conn.  143;  Associates  of  Jersey 
City  V.  Davison,  29  N.   J.  L.  415. 

16  Hallahan  v.  Herbert,  11  Abb. 
Pr.  (N.  S.)  (N.  Y.)  326;  Hart  v. 
Wheeler,  1  Th.  &  C.   (N.  Y.)   403. 

1"  Carson  v.  Boudinot,  2  Wash.  C. 
C.  (U.  S.)  33,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,462; 
Gaule  V.  Bilyeau,  25  Pa.  St.  521. 
Where  the  vendor  of  real  estate 
has  done  nothing  to  authorize  the 
vendee  to  improve  the  premises, 
and  the  latter,  on  his  own  respon- 


69 


CONTRACT   WITH  VENDOR. 


27 


If  a  vendor  has  parted  with  possession  of  the  premises/^  and 
does  nothing  to  mislead  the  material  man,  he  is  not  an  owner 
within  the  meaning  of  the  statute/^  so  as  to  subject  his  in- 
terest to  a  Hen. 2*^  Where  a  lease  stipulates  that  the  lessee 
is  to  make  certain  improvements,  the  same  rule  is  applied  as 
where  in  an  executory  contract  a  stipulation  is  made  for  im- 
provements, and  in  such  cases  the  lessee  is  the  owner  and  his 
interest  and  the  landlord's  may  be  made  subject  to  a  lien  for 
such  improvements.^^  In  such  cases  the  material  man  is 
chargeable  with  notice  of  the  terms  of  the  recorded  lease,22 
and  if  the  lease  stipulates  there  shall  be  no  lien,  such  stipu- 
lation will  control.2^     The  improvements   must  come  within 


sibility,  incurs  a  liability  with  the 
builder,  the  lien  of  the  mechanic 
will  be  confined  to  the  interest  of 
the  purchaser  in  the  premises, 
and  the  vendor  can  not  be  re- 
quired to  part  with  his  title  un- 
til the  purchase  price  is  fully 
paid.  But  where  the  vendor  by 
his  contract  of  sale,  expressly  au- 
thorizes his  vendee  to  erect  a 
building  on  the  premises,  agree- 
ing to  advance  money  to  aid  in 
such  improvement  as  the  work 
progresses,  and  before  any  ter- 
mination of  the  contract,  and  no- 
tice thereof,  a  mechanic  furnishes 
materials  and  performs  labor  in 
the  erection  of  such  building,  the 
latter  will  not  be  required  to  look 
alone  to  the  title  held  by  the  ven- 
dee, but  may  enforce  his  lien 
against  the  legal  as  well  as  the 
equitable  title.  Henderson  v. 
Connelly,  123  111.  98,  14  N.  E.  1,  5 
Am.   St.  490. 

18  Marston  v.  Stickney,  60  N.  H. 
112. 

19  Faber  v.   Muir,   27   Tex.   Civ. 
App.  27,  64  S.  W.  938. 


20  Pickens  v.  Plattsmouth  Inv. 
Co.,  37  Neb.  272,  55  N.  W.  947. 

2iMinnesota.  —  John  Martin 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Wood,  42  Minn. 
433,  44  N.  W.  315;  Ness  v.  Wood, 
42  Minn.  427,  44  N.  W.  313. 

New  York. — Cornell  v.  Barney, 
94  N.  Y.  394;  Burkitt  v.  Harper, 
79  N.  Y.  273;  Mosher  v.  Lewis,  10 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  373,  31  N.  Y.  Supp. 
433. 

Pennsylrania. — Boteler  v.  Es- 
pen,  99  Pa.  St.  313;  Barclay  v. 
Wainright,  86  Pa.  St.  191;  Fisher 
V.  Rush,  71  Pa.  St.  40;  Leiby  v. 
Wilson,  40  Pa.  St.  63;  Woodward 
V.  Leiby,  36  Pa.  St.  437;  Rush  v. 
Perot,  12  Phila.  (Pa.)  175,  34 
Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  58;  Long  v.  Mc- 
Lanahan,  103  Pa.  St.  537;  Hopper 
V.  Childs,  43  Pa.  St.  310. 

Wisconsin. — Cook  v.  Goodyear, 
79   Wis.   606,  48   N.   W.   860. 

22  Cornell  v.  Barney,  94  N.  Y. 
394.  But  it  must  be  such  a  lease 
as  the  law  allows  to  be  recorded. 
Mosher  v.  Lewis,  10  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
373,  31  N.  Y.  Supp.  433. 

23  Boone  v.  Chatfield,  118  N. 
Car.  916,  24  S.  E.  745. 


§  28]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN.  70 

the  terms  of  the  lease. 24  Where  it  is  held  that  the  lessor  may 
be  bound  if  he  has  notice  of  the  improvements,  the  fact  that 
he  lives  in  the  neighborhood  and  the  work  is  apparent,  will 
not  be  sufificient  notice  to  bind  his  interest  •,-^  but  if  he  assists 
in  the  work,  notice  will  be  presumed. ^^ 

§  28.  Who  is  owner— Ohio  Statute.— Section  3184f  of  the 
Ohio  statute  provides  that  every  person,  including  cestuis  que 
trust,  for  whose  immediate  use,  enjoyment,  or  benefit  any 
building,  erection  or  improvement  shall  be  made,  shall  under 
this  act  be  included  in  the  words  owner  or  proprietor.^"  A 
cestui  que  trust  is  defined  to  be  ''The  beneficiary  of  an  estate, 
held  in  trust ;  he  for  whose  benefit  another  person  is  enfeoffed 
or  seized  of  lands  or  tenements,  or  is  possessed  of  personal 
property."28 

§  29.  Capacity  to  Contract. — The  same  capacity  on  the 
part  of  the  owner  of  land  to  make  a  contract  that  will  be  the 
basis  of  a  lien  is  required,  as  in  the  making  of  any  other  con- 
tract. If  the  owner  is  under  such  disability  as  would  invali- 
date any  contract  that  he  might  enter  into,  it  would  naturally 
follow  that  he  could  not  by  contract  confer  a  right  to  a  lien.^ 
The  liability  for  the  debt  rests  upon  the  validity  of  the  con- 
tract, the  lien  being  a  mere  incident  thereto.^  Idiots  and  lun- 
atics and  infants  can  not  make  a  binding  contract,  and  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  person  furnishing  labor  or  material  to  ascertain 
that  the  person  to  whom  he  is  furnishing  such  labor  or  ma- 

24  Mosher  v.  Lewis,  10  Misc.  (N.  27  Ohio  R.  S.  3184f.  86  Gen.  p. 
Y.)    37,   31  N.  Y.   Supp.  433,   side-       373,  375. 

walk  not;  Regan  v.  Borst,  11  Misc.  28  6  Cyc.  p.  845.     See  §  222. 

(N.   Y.)    92,   32   N.    Y.    Supp.    810,  i  Choteau  v.  Thompson,  20  Ohio 

not  in  writing.  St.  114;    Cornell  v.  Barney,  94  N. 

See  Dec.  and  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me-  Y.  394;  Knapp  v.  Brown,  45  N.  Y. 

chanics'  Liens.  §  63.  207.     See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 

25  Francis  v.  Sayles,   101  Mass.  chanics'  Liens,  §  66. 

435;    Knapp    v.    Brown,   45   N.    Y.  2  Hall  v.  Acken,  47  N.  J.  L.  340; 

207,  11  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  (N.  Y.)  118.  McCarty  v.  Carter,   49   111.   53,  95 

26  Otis  V.  Dodd,  24  Hun  (N.  Y.)  Am.  Dec.  572;  Spring  Brook  Lum- 
538;    Cornell  v.  Barney,  94  N.  Y. 

394. 


71 


CAPACITY  TO  CONTRACT. 


29 


terial,  is  not  under  a  disability  that  would  avoid  his  contract.^ 
In  case  of  infancy  it  is  held  that  the  retention  of  the  build- 
ing after  he  becomes  of  legal  age  is  not  such  a  ratification  of 
the  contract  as  will  give  validity  to  a  lien.^  Under  former 
laws  married  women  were  not  liable  for  contracts  generally, 
but  these  restrictions  have  been  removed,  and  the  contracts 
of  married  women  now  stand  upon  the  same  footing  as  those 
of  other  persons.^  In  some  few  states  where  the  married 
woman  is  still  under  a  modified  form  of  disability,  some  ques- 
tion has  been  raised  as  to  her  power  to  make  her  property  lia- 
ble for  a  claim  such  as  will  support  a  mechanic's  lien.*^  In  pre- 
vious sections,'''  consideration  has  been  given  to  the  question 
of  the  ownership  necessary  to  give  one  the  right  to  make 
the  property  liable  to  a  lien,  and  it  is  assumed  in  this  section 
that  the  capacity  to  contract  is  not  questioned  upon  that 
ground. 


ber  Co.  v.  Watkins,  26  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  199. 

3  McCarty  v.  Carter,  49  111.  53, 
95  Am.  Dec.  572;  Alvey  v.  Reed, 
115  Ind.  148,  17  N.  E.  265,  7  Am. 
Dec.  418;  Price  v.  Jennings,  62 
Ind.  111. 

•i  Bloomer  v.  Nolan,  36  Neb.  51, 
53  N.  W.   1039,   38   Am.   St.   690. 

o  Illinoi'S. — Greenleaf  v.  Beebee, 
80    111.    520. 

Indiana. — Stephenson  v.  Bal- 
lard, 82  Ind.  87;  Capp  v.  Stewart, 
38  Ind.  479;  Littlejohn  v.  Milli- 
rons,  7  Ind.  125. 

Iowa. — Greenough  v.  Wigginton. 
2  G.  Greene    (Iowa)   435. 

Kentucky. — Jefferson  v.  Hop- 
son  Bros.  (Ky.)  84  S.  W.  540,  27 
Ky.  L.  140. 

Minnesota. — Tuttle  v.  Howe,  14 
Minn.  145,  100  Am.  Dec.  205;  Car- 
penter   V.    Wilverschied,    5    Minn. 


170;  Carpenter  v.  Leonard,  5 
-Minn.  155. 

Missouri. — Tucker  v.  Gest,  46 
Mo.  339;  Carthage  Marble  & 
White  Lime  Co.  v.  Bauman,  44 
Mo.  App.  386. 

New  York. — Hauptman  v.  Cat- 
lin,  20  N.  Y.  247. 

Ohio. — INIachir  v.  Burroughs,  14 
Ohio  St.  519. 

Pennsylrauia. — Germania  Sav. 
Bank,  Appeal  of,  95  Pa.  St.  329. 
See  §  38. 

6  Alabama. — Cutcliff  v.  McAn- 
nally,  88  Ala.  507,  7  So.  331; 
Wadsworth  v.  Hodge,  88  Ala.  500, 
7  So.  194;  Youngblood  v.  McAn- 
ally,  88  Ala.  512,  7  So.  263. 

Florida.— O'Neil  v.  Percival,  20 
Fla.  937,  51  Am.  Rep.  634. 

Kentucky. — Roberts  v.  Riggs,  84 
Ky.  251,  1  S.  W.  431,  8  Ky.  L. 
247. 

7  See  §§  24,  25. 


§  30]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN.  72 

§  30.  Contract — Authority  to  make. — If  the  party  contract- 
ing' is  not  an  owner  witliin  the  meaning  of  the  statutes/  it 
must  be  shown  that  he  acts  by  authority  from  the  owner.^ 
This  is  a  matter  of  agency  and  is  established  as  such  au- 
thority is  usually  established.  There  may  be  cases  when 
the  person  is  apparently  authorized  to  so  act,  but  has  no  au- 
thority by  reason  of  the  capacity  in  which  he  is  acting;  thus, 
a  g-uardian,3  without  order  of  court,^  has  not  authority  to  make 
a  contract,  and  the  same  rule  is  applied  to  an  administrator,^ 
unless  the  statute  under  which  he  is  acting  gives  him  author- 
ity.*^ The  mere  fact  that  a  person  is  an  adjoining  land  owner 
will  not  give  authority  to  erect  a  building  extending  over  an- 
other's premises.'^  So  a  corporation  that  was  not  in  exist- 
ence at  the  time  the  contract  was  made  would  be  wanting  in 
authority  to  contract.^  The  question  of  authority  to  make  a 
contract,  arises  most  frequently  in  cases  where  one  assumes 
to  act  as  an  agent.  The  authority  of  the  agent  may  be  either 
express  or  implied.^  If  the  authority  to  contract  is  conceded, 
then  the  lien  is  not  void  because  the  agent  exceeds  his  au- 

1  See    §§  10,    26-29.  "  Johnson    v.  Bennett,   6     Colo. 

2  Hines  v.   Miller,  122  Cal.   517,      App.  362,  40  Pac.  847. 

55  Pac.  401.     See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  On      diTiding      wall.— Plaintiff, 

tit  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  69.  when  he  builds  a  wall  with  con- 

3  Copley  V.  O'Neil,  39  How.  sent  of  defendant  on  the  dividing 
Prac.   (N.  Y.)   41.                            '  line  between  their  lots,   and  the 

4  Fish  V.  McCarthy,  96  Cal.  484,  latter  promises  to  pay  half  the 
31  Pac.  529,  31  Am.  St.  237;  Guy  cost  when  he  shall  use  the  wall, 
V.  Duprey,  16  Cal.  196;  Bent  v.  is  not  entitled  to  a  mechanic's 
Barnett,  95  Ky.  499,  26  S.  W.  537.  lien  for  one-half  the  cost  on  de- 

5  Made  under  an  invalid  order  fendant's  lot,  on  defendant's  mak- 
of  probate  Court.  Waldermeyer  ing  use  of  the  wall.  Swift  v.  Cal- 
V.  Loebig,  183  Mo.  363,  81  S.  W.  nan,  103  Iowa  206,  71  N.  W.  233. 
904.  Valid  on  building  alone.  §  Davis  v.  Ravenna  Creamery 
Weathersby  v.  Sinclair,  43  Miss.  Co.,  48  Neb.  471,  67  N.  W.  436;  Da- 
189.  vis  V.  Maysville  Creamery  Assn., 

G  Seibel  v.  Bath,  5  Wyo.  409,  40  63  Mo.  App.  477,  2  Mo.  App.  Rep'r 

Pac.  756;   McCormack  v.  Butland,  847. 

191  Mass.  424,  77  N.  E.  761;  Clark  9  Williams  v.  Uncompahgre  Ca- 

V.  North,  131  Wis.  599,  111  N.  W.  nal  Co.,  13  Colo.  469,  22  Pac.  806; 

681,  11  L.  R.  A.    (N.  S.)    764.  Blake  v.  Pitcher,  46  Md.  453;  Ore- 


7Z 


AUTHORITY  TO  MAKE  CONTRACT. 


30 


thority  as  to  the  amount  that  was  to  be  contracted  for.^''  But 
g-enerally  the  authority  of  the  agent  or  its  extent  is  not  pre- 
sumed. If  he  goes  beyond  what  is  usually  known  as  the  scope 
of  his  authority  the  right  to  a  lien  fails. ^^  A  partner,  as  in- 
cident to  the  partnership,  has  sufficient  authority  to  make  a 
contract  that  will  bind  the  partnership  and  support  a  lien  on 
the  partnership  property. ^^  A  lease  holder  is  not  by  virtue 
of  that  fact  invested  with  sufificient  authority,^^  and  a  tenant 
in  common  cannot  bind  the  interest  of  his  co-tenant.^'*  It  must 
be  shown  that  the  authority  existed  at  the  time  the  contract 


gon  Lumber  Co.  v.  Beckleen,  130 
Iowa  42,  106  N.  W.  260. 

School  committee. — A  lien  ex- 
ists, under  St.  1S55,  c.  431  for 
work  done  in  enlarging  a  school 
house  uijder  a  written  contract 
with  a  building  committee,  chosen 
by  the  district  with  authority  to 
make  the  enlargement,  although 
by  the  terms  of  the  contract  the 
committee  were  personally  re- 
sponsible therefor;  and  it  is  im- 
material whether  the  acts  of  the 
committee  were  subsequently  rat- 
ified by  the  district  at  a  legal 
meeting.  Morse  v.  School  Dist. 
No.  7,  3  Allen   (Mass.)    307. 

Owner  or  agent. — The  owner  of 
three  lots  and  a  building  contrac- 
tor agreed  that  the  contractor 
should  buy  the  lots  on  credit,  a 
vendor's  lien  being  reserved,  and 
should  erect  on  one  of  the  lots  a 
building  according  to  a  plan  prev- 
iously made  for  the  owner,  the 
other  two  lots  to  be  used  to  ob- 
tain material;  that  when  the' 
building  was  completed  the  con- 
tractor should  sell  it,  and  pay  the 
expense  of  the  building  and  the 
price  of  the  lots,  the  surplus  to 
be    his    profits.      The    owner    was 


to  advance  money  needed  to  fur- 
ther the  enterprise.  The  builder, 
in  contracting  with  material  men 
and  mechanics,  was  the  owner's 
agent,  within  Mill  &  V.  Code,  2739 
(Shannon's  Code,  3531),  giving  a 
lien  on  land  on  which  any  house 
has  been  built,  by  special  contract 
with  the  owner  or  his  agent. 
Jonte  V.  Gill  (Tenn.  Ch.  App.),  39 
S.  W.  750. 

10  Paine  v.  Tillinghast,  52  Conn. 
532. 

11  If  the  contract  is  made  with 
an  agent,  the  right  to  a  lien  de- 
pends upon  the  scope  of  the 
agency.  Greene  v.  McDonald, 
Burton  &  Sowles,  70  Vt.  372. 

12  Smith  V.  Johnson,  2  MacAr- 
thur  (D.  C.)  481;  Paulsen  v.  Man- 
ske,  126  111.  72,  18  N.  E.  275,  9 
Am.  St.  532;  Real  Estate  &  Im- 
provement Co.  of  Baltimore  v. 
Phillips,  90  Md.  515,  45  Atl.  174; 
Hoagland  v.  Lusk,  33  Neb.  376,  50 
N.  W.  162,  29  Am.  St.  485;  Spru- 
hen  V.  Stout,  52  Wis.  517,  9  N.  W. 
277. 

13  Gates  V.  Fredericks  (Ariz.) 
52  Pac.  1118. 

1-1  Leslie  v.  Leonard,  10  Pa. 
Super.    Ct.    (Pa.)    548. 


§  30]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN.  74 

was  entered  into.^^  However,  if  a  contract  leasing  the  prem- 
ises stipulates  that  certain  improvements  shall  be  put  up, 
then  proper  authority  is  presumed. ^^  An  executory  contract 
of  sale  will  not  give  to  a  prospective  purchaser  sufficient 
authority  to  bind  the  seller.^"  The  same  rule  applies  here  as 
in  the  case  of  leases.  If  the  purchaser  is  in  possession  with 
an  agreement  that  the  owner  will  pay  for  the  buildings  and 
repairs,  he  has  authority  sufficient  to  bind  the  seller.^"  Writ- 
ten authority  establishing  the  agency  is  not  necessary  unless 
the  statute  so  provides.  ^^ 

§  31.     Contract — Authority    to    make    (continued). — In    all 

cases  the  material  man  or  laborer  must  at  his  peril  find  out 
the  authority  of  the  agent,  but  if  the  owner  holds  out  a  per- 
son as  having  the  proper  authority,  he  is  estopped  from  as- 
serting to  the  contrary. 1^  If,  however,  the  agent  contracts  on 
his  own  credit  this  will  show  that  there  is  no  intention  to 
charge  the  building  and  no  lien  can  be  taken  upon  such  con- 
tract.20  And  so  it  has  been  held  that  if  a  person  is  furnished 
with  funds  to  pay  for  material  purchased  there  is  no  authority 
to  make  a  contract  that  will  give  a  lien,  binding  the  owner. 
This  will  probably  be  true  only  where  the  material  man  had 
knowleds^e  that  the  agent  was  not  an  owner. -^     The  relation  of 


15  Rass  V.  Sebastian,  160  111.  602,  Drinkliouse    (N.  J.  Err.  &  App.), 

43  N.  E.  708.  58  N.  J.  L.  432,  36  Atl.  1034. 

i'5  See     §§     27-29.       Kremer     v.  I'J  Mammoth    I\Iin.    Co.    v.    Salt 

Walton,  16  Wash.  139,  47  Pac.  238.  Lake   Foundry   &  Mach.   Co.,    151 

17  Moore   v.   McLaughlin,   42   N.  U.    S.    447,   14    Super.   Ct.   384,   38 

Y.   Supp.    256,   11  App.    Div.    477;  L.  Ed.   229;    Hough  v.  Collins,  70 

Vosseller  v.  Slater,  163  N.  Y.  564,  111.    App.    661.      See    Dec.    &    Am. 

57   N.   E.   1127;    Perkins   v.   Blair,  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  72. 

22  R.  I.   334,  47  Atl.  883.     See   §§  20  Rothe  v.  Belliugrath,  71  Ala. 

18  &  19.  55. 

17a  Moore    v.    Jackson,    49    Cal.  21  proctor  v.  Tows,  115  111.  138. 
109;    Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Dil-  Authority   by  Court — Authority 
Ion,    13    Colo.    App.    196,    56    Pac.  granted  by  decree  of  court  to  one 
989.  of  a  class  of  certain   remainder- 
is  American  Brick  &  Tile  Co.  v.  men  to  act  as  their  agent  in  su- 


75 


AUTHORITY  TO  MAKE  CONTRACT. 


[§31 


husband  and  wife  sometimes  raises  a  question  as  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  one  to  make  contracts  that  will  bind  the  other. 
No  authority  from  the  wife  to  the  husband  will  be  presumed 
merely  from  the  fact  that  they  are  husband  and  wife.22 
Neither  will  the  fact  of  her  knowledge  of  the  improvement 
raise  a  presumption  that  he  acts  by  authority  from  his  wife.^^ 
If  the  husband  acts  for  himself,  of  course  there  can 
be  no  presumed  authority  .^'^  But  if  the  wife  assumes 
to     act     and     recognizes     his     authority,     as     for     instance 

Iowa. — Mineah  v.  Stotts,  130 
Iowa  530,  107  N.  W.  425;  Cross  v. 
Stott,  130  Iowa  530;  Peterson  v. 
Stott,  130  Iowa  530. 

Micliigan. — Bauer  v.  Long,  147 
Mich.  351,  110  N.  W.  1059,  13  De- 
troit Leg.  N.  1018. 

Utah — Morrison  v.  Clark,  20 
Utah  432,  59   Pac.   235. 

23  Missouri. — Kline  v.  Perry,  51 
Mo.  App.  422. 

Nebraska. — Rust-Owen  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Holt,  60  Neb.  82,  82  N.  W. 
112;  Bradford  v.  Higgins,  31  Nebr. 
192,  47  N.  W.  749. 

Oklahoma. — Block  v.  Pearson, 
Okla.  91  Pac.  714. 

Texas. — Blevins  v.  Cameron,  2 
Posey,   Unrep.   Cas.    (Tex.)    461. 

Wisconsin. — Corsen  v.  Ziehl, 
103  Wis.  381,  386,  79  N.  W.  562. 

See  §38. 

2  4  Michigan.— Hall  v.  Erkfitz, 
125  Mich.  332,  84  N.  W.  310,  7  De- 
troit Leg.  N.  524. 

Missouri. — Alexander  v.  Per- 
kins, 71  Mo.  App.  286. 

IVebraska. — Rust-Owen  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Holt,  60  Neb.  82,  82  N.  W. 
112,  citing  all  other  Nebraska  au- 
thorities, on  subject  of  liens. 

Pennsjivauia. — Miller  v.  Anne, 
17  Lane.  Law  Rev.  (Pa.  Com.  PI.) 
312. 


perintending  the  building  of  a  ho- 
tel on  the  property,  and  to  apply 
sums  to  be  realized  from  certain 
mortgages  thereon  in  payment  of 
its  construction,  does  not  give 
such  agent  the  right  to  contract, 
so  as  to  subject  the  property  to 
a  mechanic's  lien.  Rudd  v.  Littell, 
30  Ky.  158,  45  S.  W.  451. 

22  Indiana. — Johnson  v.  Tute- 
wiler,   35   Ind.   353. 

Iowa. — James  v.  Dalbey,  107 
Iowa  463,  78  N.  W.   51. 

Missouri. — Fatham  &  Miller 
Planing  Mill  Co.  v.  Christopel,  60 
Mo.  App.  106;  Kansas  City  Plan- 
ing Mill  Co.  V.  Brundage,  25  Mo. 
App.  268;  Garnett  v.  Berry,  3  Mo. 
App.  197;  Meyer  v.  Broadwell,  83 
Mo.  571. 

Nebraska. — Rust-Owen  Lumber 
Co.  v.  Holt,  60  Neb.  82,  82  N.  W. 
112. 

IVew  York. — Copley  v.  O'Neil, 
39  How.  Prac.   (N.  Y.)   41. 

Texas. — Blevins  v.  Cameron, 
2  Posey,  Unrep.  Cas.  (Tex.)  461, 
against  her  protest. 

Alabama. — McGeever  v.  S.  H. 
Harris  &  Sons,  148  Ala.  503,  41  So. 
930;  Saunders  v.  Tuscumbia  Roof- 
ing &  Plumbing  Co.,  148  Ala.  519, 
41  So.  982. 


§31] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


76 


b}'  making-  payments  to  the  material  man,^^  or  repre- 
senting that  her  husband  is  her  agent,^*^  or  it  is  shown 
that  he  acts  with  her  consent,^'  or  that  she  is  in  fraudulent 
collusion  with  her  husband,28  or  she  ratifies  the  contract,^^ 
authority  to  contract  will  be  presumed.  But  the  fact  that  he 
furnishes  some  of  the  money  or  the  lot  will  not  be  sufficient.^o 
If  the  authority  is  shown,  the  lien  will  not  fail  because  he  has 
exceeded  his  authority  as  to  the  amount  of  expenditure.^^ 
Neither  Avill  the  fact  that  credit  was  given  to  the  husband 
alone  defeat  the  lien  if  authority  is  otherwise  shown. ^^  Where 
the  statute  gives  the  husband  authority  to  contract,^^  or  makes 
him  trustee  for  his  wife,  then  her  property  will  be  bound.^'* 
Where  she  is  under  such  disability  that  she  cannot  bind  her 
estate  by  her  own  contracts,  then  she  can  not  give  authority 
to  her  husband  to  make  a  binding  contract.^^     In  states  that 


Tennessee. — Baker  v.  Stone 
(Tenn.  Ch.  App.),  58  S.  W.  761. 

25  Illinois. — INIcNichols  v.  Kett- 
ner,  22  111.  App.  493. 

Maryland. — Rlmmey  v.  Getter- 
man,  63  Md.  424. 

Massachusetts.  —  Wheaton  v. 
Trimble,  145  Mass.  345,  14  N.  E. 
104,  1  Am.  St.  463;  Gerry  v.  Howe, 
130  Mass.  347. 

Michigan. — ^Frohlich  v.  Carroll, 
127  Mich.  561,  86  N.  W.  1034,  8  De- 
troit Leg.  N.  458. 

Nebraska. — Bradford  v.  Peter- 
son, 30  Neb.  96,  46  N.  W.  220; 
Howell  V.  Hathaway,  28  Neb-  807, 
44  N.  W.  1136- 

Oklahoma, — Limerick  v.  Ketch- 
am,  17  Okla.  532,  87  Pac.  605. 

26  Illinois. — Interstate  Building 
&  Loan  Ass'n  a*.  Avers,  71  111.  App. 
529;  Prendergast  v.  McNally,  76 
111.  App.  335. 

Indiana. — Thompson  v.  Shep- 
ard,  85  Ind.  352. 


Missouri. — Fischer  v.  Anslyn, 
30  Mo.  App.  316. 

Pennsylrania.  —  Forrester  v. 
Preston,  2  Pittsbg.  R.   (Pa.)   298. 

27  Bevan  v.  Thackara,  143  Pa. 
182,  22  Atl.  873,  28  W.  N.  C.  473, 
24  Am.  St.  529. 

28  Frohlich  v.  Carroll,  127 
Mich.  561,  86  X.  W.  1034,  8  De- 
troit Leg.   N.   458. 

2f>  Interstate  Building  &  Loan 
Association  v.  Ayers,  177  111.  9,  52 
N.  E.  342;  Morrison  v.  Clark,  20 
Utah  432,  59   Pac.   235. 

30  Frohlich  v.  Carroll,  127  Mich. 
561,  86  N.  W.  1034,  8  Detroit  Leg. 
N.  458;  Duross  v.  Broderick,  78 
Mo.  App.  Rep'r,  223. 

31  Jones  T.  Pothast,  72  Ind.  158. 

32  Kidd  V.  Wilson,  23  Iowa,  464. 

33  Bethell  v.  Chicago  Lumber 
Co.,  39  Kan.  230,  17  Pac.  813. 

34  Ex  Parte  Schmidt,  62  Ala. 
252. 

35  Pell  V.  Cole,  59  Ky.  (2  Mete.) 
252. 


77  AUTHORITY  TO  MAKE  CONTRACT.  [§31 

recognize  community  property,  the  husband  has  authority  to 
make  a  binding  contract. ^^  In  enforcing  the  lien  the  petition 
must  show  acts  that  will  bind  the  wife  by  estoppel,  or  agency, 
in  order  that  the  lien  may  be  established.^'^  The  question  of 
agency  is  a  question  of  fact  to  be  decided  by  the  jury  from 
a  preponderance  of  the  evidence.^^  If  the  statute  requires  the 
contract  to  be  in  writing  this  must  be  shown  or  the  wife  will 
not  be  bound.  A  receiver  has  no  authority  to  subject  the 
property  to  a  lien.^^ 

§  32.  Sufficiency  of  contract. — As  the  contract  between  the 
owner  and  contractor  is  the  basis  of  the  lien,  it  must  be  one 
that  is  sufficient  in  law  before  it  can  be  held  to  be  a  basis 
for  the  legal  establishment  of  a  lien.  If  the  statute  puts  any 
formalities  around  its  execution,  these  formalities  must  be 
observed,  otherwise  the  usual  rules  applying  to  the  legality  of 
contracts  will  be  applied.  Thus,  if  the  contract  is  barred  by 
the  statute  of  limitations,^  or  is  void  under  the  statute  of 
frauds,^  or  is  for  material  furnished,  knowingly,  for  an  illegal 
structure,^  there  will  be  no  lien ;  but  it  is  generally  held  that 
to  defeat  a  furnisher  of  material  for  an  illegal  purpose  or 
structure,  the  furnisher  must  be  a  particeps  criminis  with  the 
owner.*  If  the  contract  has  in  any  manner  been  extinguished 
or  fully  satisfied,  the  basis  for  the  lien  is  gone.^  In  all  instances 

36  Hard  v.  Owens  (Tex.  Civ.  Bush.  (Ky.)  538;  Hills  v.  Halli- 
App.),  48  S.  W.  200.  well,   50   Conn.    270.     See   Dec.  & 

37  Wilson  V.  Schuck,  5  111.  App.  Am.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens,  § 
572;  Wilson  v.  Smith,  2  Leg.  Rec.  73. 

(Pa.)    368;    Marline  v.  Nelson,  51  2  Birchell     v.     Neaster,    36  Ohio 

111.  422.  St.  331. 

38  A.  M.  Becker  Lumber  Co.  v.  3  Spurgeon  v.  McElwain,  6  Ohio 
Stevens,  84  Mo.  App.  558;  Jones  444;  Dorsey  v.  Langworthy,  3 
V.  Walker,  83  N.  Y.  612.  Iowa  341. 

39  Rowley  v.  Varnum,  15  Okla.  4  Bishop  v.  Honey,  34  Tex.  248. 
612,  84  Pac.  487;  Tenth  Nat.  Bank  5  Wooten  v.  Archer,  49  Ga.  388; 
V.  Smith  Const.  Co.,  218  Pa.  584,  Wilkie  v.  Bray,  71  N.  Car.  205; 
67  Atl.  874.  Nolan  v.  Gardner,  4  E.  D.  Smith 

1  Yeates  v.  Weeden,  6  Bush.  (N.  Y.)  727;  Hoyt  v.  Miner,  7 
(Ky.)    39;    Vandiver   v.    Hodge,    4      Hill.   (N.  Y.)   525. 


§32] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


78 


the  contract  itself  must  rest  upon  a  valid  consideration.^ 
Whether  or  not  the  contract  is  valid  will  depend  upon  the 
facts  existing-  at  the  time  the  work  was  begun."^  If  the  contract 
was  then  valid  and  subsequently  modified,  but  not  so  as  to 
afifect  its  validity,  it  may  still  be  held  to  be  the  basis  of  a  lien.^ 
It  should  be  sufficiently  definite  to  enable  the  amount  to  be 
determined  with  reasonable  accuracy  and  precision.^  And  it 
must  be  such  a  contract  that  if  it  stood  alone  it  would  support 
an  action  at  law.^^  All  claiming-  or  working  under  the  con- 
tract are  bound  by  its  terms. ^^  The  fact  that  the  articles  or 
work  are  furnished  at  various  times  will  not  destroy  the  en- 
tirety of  the  contract. 1-  An  early  decision  of  the  Mas- 
sachusetts court  holds  that  it  must  be  an  express  con- 
tract,^^    but    this    is    not    a    general    rule,    it    may    be    es- 


6  Masow  V.  Fife,  10  Wash.  528, 
39   Pac.   140. 

~  Vanderpoel  v.  Knight,  102  111. 
App.   596. 

swinkle  Terra  Cotta  Co.  v.  Ga- 
lena Safety  Vault  &  Trust  Co.,  64 
111.  App.  184;  Concord  Apartment 
House  Co.  V.  O'Brien,  228  111.  476, 
81  N.  E.  1076,  affirming  128  III. 
App.  437. 

9  Wilder  v.  French,  9  Gray 
(Mass.)  393;  Manchester  v.  Searle, 
121  Mass.  418.  The  statute  pro- 
vides, among  other  things,  "that 
any  person  to  -whom  money  shall 
be  due  for  labor  expended  in  the 
erection  or  repair  of  a  building 
and  the  lot  of  land  on  -which  it 
stands  shall  have  a  lien  for  his 
security,  to  an  amount  not  ex- 
ceeding the  amount  of  the  con- 
tract. This  plainly  shows  that 
the  contract  under  -which  a  lien 
may  arise,  must  be  of  such  a 
character,  and  upon  such  terms 
and  stipulations  between  the  par- 


ties, that  the  amount  may  be  as- 
certained and  determined  with 
precision  and  certainty.  Wilder 
V.  French,  75  Mass.  395;  Joseph 
N.  Eisendrath  Co.  v.  Gebhardt, 
124  111.  App.  325,  decree  affirmed 
222  111.  113,  78  N.  E.  22;  Merritt 
V.  Crane  Co.,  225  111.  181,  80  N.  E. 
103,  modifying  judgment  126  111. 
App.  337;  Provost  v.  Shirk,  223 
111.  468;   79  N.  E.  178. 

10  Loonie  v.  Hogan,  9  N.  Y.  435; 
Concord  Apartment  House  Co.  v. 
O'Brien,  228  111.  476,  128  111.  App. 
437,  decree  affirmed,  81  N.  E. 
1076. 

11  Grane  v.  Genin,  60  N.  Y.  127; 
Ferguson  v.  Stephenson-Brown 
Lumber  Co.,  14  Okla.  148,  77  Pac. 
184;  O'Driscoll  v.  Bradford,  171 
Mass.  231,  50  N.  E.,  628. 

1-  IMilner  v.  Norris,  13  Minn. 
455. 

13  Parker  v.  Anthony,  70  Mass. 
(Gray)    289. 


79 


SUFFICIENCY  OF  CONTRACT. 


[§32 


tablished  from  circumstances  the  same  as  other  imphed  con- 
tracts.^'* Unless  the  statute  expressly  so  provides,  it  is 
immaterial  where  the  contract  is  made/°  so  long  as  the  ma- 
terials are  furnished  in  the  state  where  the  building  is  located. ^^ 
Where  the  statute  makes  the  plans  and  specifications  an  es- 
sential element  of  the  work  such  specifications  must  be  set 
forth,  or  attached. ^^  Where  the  contract  is  founded  on  a 
single  consideration  and  parts  of  the  work  or  material  are  sub- 
ject to  a  lien  and  others  are  not,  as  a  general  rule  such  a  con- 
tract will  not  furnish  the  basis  for  a  lien.^'*  But  if  the  amount 
of  what  might  be  termed  the  lienable  part  can  be  ascertained, 
such  part  wull  furnish  a  basis  for  a  lien.^^  This  applies 
where  the  work  or  building  is  on  different  tracts  of  land,^^ 
unless  the  different  tracts  of  land  belong  to  different  persons, 
some  of  whom  are  not  parties  to  the  contract.^!     If,  however, 


14  See   §  35,  et  seq. 

15  Gaty  V.  Casey,  15  111.  (5 
Peck)  189;  United  States  Inv.  Co. 
V.  Phelps  &  Bigelow  Windmill 
Co.,  54  Kan.  144,  37  Pac.  982;  At- 
kins V.  Little,  17  Minn.  342  (Gil. 
320) ;  Fagan  v.  Boyle  Mach.  Co., 
65  Tex.  324. 

16  Campbell  v.  Coon,  149  N.  Y. 
556,  44  N.  E.  300,  38  L.  R.  A.  410; 
see  §  3. 

17  California. — Greig  v.  Riordan, 
99  Cal.  316,  33  Pac.  913;  Worden 
V.  Hammond,  57  Cal.  61;  Califor- 
nia Iron  Const.  Co.  v.  Bradbury, 
138  Cal.  328,  71  Pac.  346. 

Pennsylvania — Short  Wade  v. 
Cole,  31  Pittsb.  (Pa.)  409;  Mon- 
tello  Brick  Works  v.  Hoot,  19 
Montg.    (Pa.)    188. 

18  Illinois.— Adler  v.  World's 
Pastime  Exposition  Co.,  126  111. 
373,  18  N.  E.  809. 

Massachusetts. —  Donaher  v. 
City  of  Boston,  126  Mass.  309; 
Mulrey   v.   Barrow,   93   Mass.    (11 


Allen)  152;  Graves  v.  Bemis,  90 
Mass.  (8  Allen)  573;  Morrison  v. 
Minot,  87  Mass.   (5  Allen)   403. 

19  Felton  V.  Minot,  89  Mass.  (7 
Allen)  412. 

20  See  §  134.  Foster  v.  Cox,  123 
Mass.   45. 

Plaintiff  agreed  to  sell  defend- 
ant a  vacant  lot,  and  to  build  her 
a  house  thereon.  Both  agree- 
ments were  written  on  the  same 
paper,  but  the  consideration  for 
each  was  separate,  and  payable 
at  different  times.  Plaintiff  built 
the  house,  and  then  gave  defend- 
ant a  deed  of  the  property.  As 
the  agreements  were  severable, 
the  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  a  me- 
chanic's lien  on  the  property  for 
the  amount  due  him  for  building 
the  house.  Fuller  v.  Proust,  155 
Pa.    275,   26   Atl.   543,    55   Am.    St. 


21  McGuinness     v.     Boyle, 
Mass.  570,  25  Am.  Rep.  123. 


123 


32] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


80 


it  can  be  ascertained  with  certainty  what  part  was  applied  to 
the  land  of  the  owner  who  entered  into  the  contract,  the  lien 
will  apply  to  that  part.--  In  some  states  the  contracts  of 
married  women  relative  to  homesteads  and  their  separate 
property,  rest  upon  different  foundations  from  other  con- 
tracts. Generally,  however,  such  contracts  now  rest  for  their 
sufficiency  upon  the  same  foundation  as  other  contracts. ^^  It 
is  not  always  necessary  to  show  that  she  makes  the  contract 
with  the  idea  of  charging  her  separate  estate.^-*  Where  the 
common  law  is  still  in  force,  though  in  a  modified  form,  it  is 
sometimes  necessary  to  allege  that  the  improvement  was  a 
necessary  one.-^  If  she  has  no  capacity  to  make  the  contract 
or  does  not  in  fact  make  one,  equity  will  not  charge  her  estate, 
even  though  the  claim  has  been  paid  by  another.^^  Having 
power  to  contract  she  will  be  held  the  same  as  any  other  con- 
tractor.-'^ Statutory  requirements  of  the  state  where  made 
will  govern  as  to  consent,-^  on  a  homestead,-^  the  signing,^'^ 


22  Batchelder  v.  Hutchinson, 
161  Mass.  462,  37  N.  E.  452. 

23  Contracts  of  married  Tvomen. 
— "While  courts  should  carefully 
protect  married  women  in  the  en- 
joyment of  their  separate  prop- 
erty and  not  permit  it  to  be  un- 
justly charged  with  an  encum- 
brance, yet  they  should  not  be 
permitted  to  enhance  the  value  of 
their  property  at  the  expense  of 
an  innocent  and  confiding  cred- 
itor. If  the  materials  were  fur- 
nished and  used  in  the  improve- 
ment of  her  property  by  her  di- 
rections or  with  her  knowledge 
and  assent,  and  were  reasonably 
necessary,  and  there  was  no 
agreement  that  her  property 
should  not  be  liable  therefor,  the 
law  will  give  a  lien  thereon  for 
the  value  of  the  materials."  Ein- 
stein V.  Jamison,  95  Pa.  403. 


2-1  Shilling  V.  Templeton,  66  Ind. 
5S5. 

2J  Einstein  v.  Jamison,  95  Pa. 
403. 

20  ?tlcFarlane  v.  Southern  Lum- 
ber &  Supply  Co.,  47  Fla.  271,  36 
So.  1029.  If  the  husband  makes 
contract  on  his  own  credit  she  is 
not  bound.  Ziegler  v.  Galvin,  45 
Hun    (N.  Y.)    44. 

2"  Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Ma- 
han,  53  Mo.  App.  425;  St.  Clair 
Bldg.  Assn.  V.  Hayes,  2  Ohio  Cir. 
Ct.   R.  225,  1  Cir.  Dec.  456. 

28  Actual  knowledge  will  be 
sufficient.  Husted  v.  ^Mathes,  77 
X.  Y.  388. 

.  29  Lignoski  v.  Crooker,  86  Tex. 
324,  24  S.  W.  278,  788;  Taylor  v. 
Huck,  65  Tex.  238. 

30  "V^Tiere  the  statute  requires 
the  contract  to  be  signed,  it  is 
sufficient  if  signed  by  the  reputed 


81 


NECESSITY   FOR   WRITTEN    CONTRACT. 


33 


and  the  authentication,^!  which  must  be  followed  or  the  valid- 
ity of  the  contract  is  impaired. 

§  33.  Contract,  necessity  for  written. — The  contract  should 
not  be  confused  with  the  lien  itself,  for  while  the  contract  is  a 
legal  incident  to  the  lien  it  is  not  the  lien  and  unless  the  statute 
so  requires,  need  not  be  in  writing.^  However,  if  the  statute 
does  require  that  the  contract  should  be  in  writing  there  can 
be  no  lien  when  the  contract  is  not  evidenced  in  that  manner.^ 
The  contract  that  is  required  to  be  in  writing  is  the  contract 
providing  for  the  building  or  improvement.  A  contract  to 
convey  land,  is  not  such  a  contract,^  nor  is  the  estimate  of  the 
building,^  nor  a  promissory  note  given  after  the  work  is  done.^ 
If  the  contract  for  material  is  changed  verbally,  as  where  a  written 
contract  to  build  a  house  was  changed  to  build  a  barn,  it  loses 
its  character  as  a  contract  in  writing.'^  In  Kentucky  before  a 
lien  can  attach  on  a  homestead  the  right  must  be  waived  in 
writing,  subscribed  by  the  owner  and  his  wife  and  acknowl- 
edsred  and  recorded   in  the  same  manner  as  a  deed."     So  in 


owner.  Diinlop  v.  Kennedy,  102 
Cal.  443,  34  Pac  92;  Joost  v.  Sul- 
livan, 111  Cal.  286,  43  Pac.  896. 

31  Pope  V.  Graham,  44  Tex.  196; 
Bosley  v.  Pease  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
22  S.  W.  516.  Acknowledged  by 
wife.  Heady  v.  Bexar  Building 
&  Loan  Assn.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26 
S.  W.  468. 

1  Iowa — Cotes  v.  Shorey,  8  Iowa 
416. 

Kcntncky. — Jefferson  v.  Hopson 
Bros.  27  Ky.  Law  140,  84  S.  W. 
540. 

Massachusetts.  —  Whitford  v. 
Newell,  84  Mass.  (2  Allen),  424. 

Mississippi. — Harrison  v.  Bree- 
den,  8  Miss.  670. 

Texas. — State  v.  Cherokee  Iron 
Mfg.  Co.,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  588, 
22   S.   W.   253. 

Tirginia. — Merchants'      &     Me- 

6 


chanics'  Sav.  Bank  v.  Dashiell, 
25  Grat.  (Va.)   616. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,  §  73. 

2  Murphy  v.  Hussa  (N.  J.  Sup.), 
57  Atl.'  388;  National  Bank  v. 
Sprague,   20   N.   J.   Eq.  13;    Asso- 

•ciates  of  Jersey  County  v.  Davi- 
son, 29  N.  J.  Law  415;  Strong  v. 
Van  Deursen,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  369; 
Haswell  v.  Goodchild,  12  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)   373. 

3  National  Bank  of  Metropolis 
V.  Sprague,  10  N.  J.  Eq.  13. 

4  Murphy  v.  Cicero  Lumber  Co., 
97  111.  App.  510. 

5  Taylor  v.  Huck,  65  Tex.  238; 
Reece     v.    Corlew,    60    Tex.     70. 

6  Reiss  V.  Schemer,  87  111.  App. 
84. 

7  Roberts  v.  Riggs,  84  Ky.  251, 
1  S.  W.  431;  Sternbergen  v.  Gow- 


33] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


82 


Texas  it  must  be  in  writing  and  recorded  within  30  days  after 
its  execution.^  In  Alabama  the  husband  must  consent  in  w'rit- 
ij-[g.io  jj^  Kentucky  though  the  contract  formerly  was  re- 
quired to  be  in  writing/^  it  is  not  so  under  the  present  statute.^^ 
The  same  is  true  of  Rhode  Island. ^^  In  California  where  the 
contract  price  is  more  than  $1,000  it  must  be  stated  in  the 
written  contract. ^^  In  Louisiana,  the  contract  must  be  in 
waiting  and  recorded,  if  the  price  exceeds  $500.1^  If  a  written 
contract  is  required  it  must  describe  the  land  on  which  the 
improvement  is  to  be  made;^^  otherw^ise  if  not  required  to  be 


dy,  93  Ky.  146,  19  S.  W.  186.  Un- 
der the  constitution  of  Michigan, 
the  homestead  can  only  be 
reached  by  a  foreclosure  of  a 
mortgage.  Burtch  v.  McGibbon, 
98   Mich.   139,   56   N.   W.   1110. 

8  Huff  V.  Clark,  59  Tex.  347; 
Barnes  v.  White,  53  Tex.  628; 
Campbell  v.  Fields,  35  Tex.  751; 
Interstate  Building  &  Loan  Assn. 
V.  Goforth,  94  Tex.  259,  59  S.  W. 
871;  Lippencott  v.  York,  86  Tex. 
276,   24   S.  W.   275. 

10  Cutcliff  V.  McAnally.  88  Ala. 
507,  7  So.  331;  Wadsworth  v. 
Hodge,  88  Ala.  500,  7  So.  194. 

11  Webster  v.  Tattershall,  18 
Ky.  Law  439,  36  S.  W-  1126;  Pass- 
more  V.  Eastin's  admr,  90  Ky. 
380,    14    S.   W.    356. 

12  Johnson  v.  Bush,  23  Ky.  Law 
1399,  65  S.  W.  158;  Spillman  v. 
Gaines,  13  Ky.  Law  328. 

13  Cameron  v.  McCullough,  11 
R.  I.  173;  Briggs  v.  Titus,  7  R.  I. 
441;    Bliss  v.   Patten,  5   R.  I.  376 

1-1  Sidlinger  v.  Kerkow,  82  Cal. 
42,  22  Pac.  932;  Barber  v.  Reyn- 
olds, 33  Cal.  497. 

15  Does  not  apply  to  sidewalk. 
Oddie  V.  His  Creditors,  6  Mart. 
(La.  N.  S.)  473;  Taylor  v.  Grain's 


admr..  16  La.  290;  Lacoste  v. 
West,  19  La.  Ann.  446;  McRae  v. 
His  Creditors,  16  La.  Ann.  305; 
First  Municipality  v.  Hall,  2  La. 
Ann.  549.  As  applied  to  third 
persons.  IMurray  v.  Sweeney,  48 
La.  Ann.  760,  19  So.  753. 

i'5  Burkhart  v.  Reisig,  24  111. 
530. 

Sufficient  description. —  A  con- 
tract to  furnish  materials  for  a 
mill  at  Marseilles,  if  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  defendant  has 
more  than  one  mill  at  that  place, 
will  be  a  sufficiently  definite  de- 
scription of  property  to  author- 
ize the  creation  of  a  mechanic's 
lien.  Strawn  v.  Cogswell,  28  111. 
457. 

>'one  specified. — ^Tiere  a  con- 
tract to  erect  a  building  desig- 
n?tes  no  particular  place  for  the 
building,  and  the  building  is  aft- 
erwards erected  on  premises  oc- 
cupied at  the  time  and  prior 
thereto  as  a  homestead,  the  con- 
tract cannot  form  the  basis  on 
which  to  establish  a  mechanic's 
lien  on  such  homestead.  Ham- 
mond V.  Wells,  45  Mich.  11,  7  N. 
W.  218. 


83  NECESSITY   FOR   WRITTEN   CONTRACT.  [§  33 

in  writing. ^'^  The  description  is  sufficient  if  there  is  enough 
to  identify  the  property.^^  It  has  been  held  enough  to  set  out 
the  name  of  the  house. ^^  In  such  matters  the  law  should  not 
be  construed  too  rigidly.-*^  If  part  is  correctly  described  and 
part  not,  the  lien  will  be  good  as  to  the  part  correctly  de- 
scribed.21  A  recital  that  the  work  is  to  be  done  on  a  frame 
building  has  been  held  sufficient  where  the  statute  requires 
the  written  contract  to  describe  the  building  ;-2  but  that  it  is 
to  be  in  accordance  with  plans,  to  be  kept  and  remain  in  the 
architect's  office,  has  been  held  not  to  be  in  the  written  con- 
tract.-^ Recital  in  one  case  that  the  w^ork  was  to  be  done  on 
an  18-room,  two-story,  frame  house,  on  lots  2  and  3,  in  block 
121,  Oak  Cliffs,  Dallas  County,  Texas,^*  and  in  another  on 
Avenue  E.  just  north  of  the  U.  S.  Post  Office,  San  Antonio, 
Texas,  have  been  held  sufficient.^^  Every  item  contemplated 
to  be  furnished  need  not  be  specifically  named  in  the  contract.-^^ 
It  should  however,  state  the  price  agreed  upon,^^  so  as  to  show 
a  definite  undertaking  contemplated  at  the  outset.^'^  Where 
a  landlord  is  made  liable  for  improvements  put  upon  his  prem- 
ie Montandon  v.  Deas,  14  Ala.  639 ;  Butterworth  v.  Levy,  104 
33,  48  Am.  Dec.  84;  Yancy  v.  Mor-  Cal.  506,  38  Pac.  897. 
ton,  94  Cal.  558,  29  Pac.  1111;  San  23  Butterworth  v.  Levy,  104  Cal. 

Diego   Lumber  Co.   v.  Woolredge,      506,  38  Pac.  897. 
90  Cal.  574,  27  Pac  431.  24  Collier   v.    Betterton,    8    Tex. 

18  Myers  v.  Maverick  (Tex.  Civ.      Civ.  App.  479,  29  S.  W.  490. 
App.),  27   S.  W.   951;   Houston  v.  25  Myers  v.  Maverick  (Tex.  Civ. 
Myers,  88  Tex.  126,  30  S.  W.  912;       App.),  27  S.  W.  1083. 

Myers     v.     Maverick     (Tex.     Civ.  25a  Jones  v.  Swan,  21  Iowa  181. 

App.),  27  S.  W.  950.  26  Sanderson   v.    Taft,   72   Mass. 

19  Powers  Lumber  Co.  v.  Wade,  (6  Gray)  533;  Wilder  v.  French, 
15  Tex.  Civ.  App.  295,  39  S.  W.  75  Mass.  (9  Gray)  393  r  Manches- 
158;    Jossman  v.  Rice,   121  Mich,  ter  v.  Searle,  121  Mass.  418. 

270,   80  N.   W.    25.  27  Not  furnishing  articles  from 

20  Barnes  v.  Thompson,  32  time  to  time  in  the  regular  course 
Tenn.  313;  D.  June  &  Co.  v.  Doke,  of  business.  Tatum  v.  Cherry, 
35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  240,  80  S.  W.  12  Ore.  135,  6  Pac.  715.  But 
402.  where  the  work  is  ordered  for  a 

21  Clark  V.  Manning,  90  111.  380.  building,  the  law   raises  a  prom- 

22  Blyth  v.  Torre  (Cal.),  38  Pac.  ise    to    pay    for   it,    and    so    there 


34] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


84 


ises  and  the  statute  requires  that  his  consent  thereto  be  in 
writing",  a  written  consent  that  the  tenant  make  repairs  at  his 
own  expense  is  insufficient.^^  The  lease  in  such  cases  must 
be  in  writing.^^ 

§  34.  Contract — Terms  and  times  of  payment. — Unless  re- 
quired by  statute  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  contract  to  state 
the  terms  and  times  of  payment.^  The  law  implies  that  pay- 
ment shall  be  made  when  work  is  completed.^  When  the 
statute  requires  a  statement  of  that  kind,  it  must  show  the 
time  set 'for  the  completion  of  the  work;^  and  if  the  contract 
fixes  the  time  of  payment  beyond  the  time  limited  by  law  for 
the  enforcement  of  the  lien,  no  lien  can  be  had.'*  If  the  statute 
requires  that  the  contract  state  both  the  time  in  which  it  is  to 
be  completed  and  the  money  to  be  paid,  there  can  be  no  lien 
without  such  statement.^     A  contract  is  sufficiently  certain  as 


is  a  complete  contract  between 
the  parties.  Hazard  Powder  Co. 
V.    Loomis,   2   Disney    (Ohio)    544. 

2SHervey  v.  Gray,  42  N.  J.  L. 
168. 

29  Mosher  v.  Lewis  (Com.  PI. 
N.  Y.),  10  Misc.  373,  31  N.  Y. 
Supp.  433.  An  agreement  that 
the  repairs  shall  be  left  on  the 
property,  is  sufficient  considera- 
tion to  support  a  lien  on  consent 
of  the  owner.  Hankinson  v.  Pi- 
ker (Com.  PI.  N.  Y.),  10  Misc. 
185,  30  N.  Y.  Supp.  1040. 

1  Foerder  v.  Wesner,  56  Iowa 
157,  9  N.  W.  100;  O'Brien  v.  Han- 
son, 9  Mo.  App.  545;  Collier  v. 
Betterton,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  479, 
29  S.  W.  490. 

2  Bolter  V.  Kozlowski,  211  Dl. 
79,  71  N.  E.  858;  Claycomb  v. 
Cecil,  27  111.  497;  Burkhart  v. 
Reisig,  24  111.  529;  Mix  v.  Ely,  2 
G.  Greene   (Iowa),  513. 

3  Murphy  v.  Cicero  Lumber  Co., 


97  111.  App.  510;  King  v.  Lamon, 
193  111.  537,  61  N.  E.  1074;  Kelly 
V.  Northern  Trust  Co.,  190  111.  401; 
Freeman  v.  Rinaker,  185  111.  172. 

^Hardin  v.  Marble,  76  Ky.  (13 
Bush.)    58. 

5  California.— Snell  v.  Brad- 
bury,   139   Cal.    379,    73   Pac.    150. 

Illinois. — Curran  v.  Webbe,  97 
111.  App.  525;  Roulet  v.  Hogan, 
203  111.  525,  68  N.  E.  97;  Henry  v. 
Applegate,  111  111.  App.  13;  Bolt- 
er V.  Koslowski,  112  111.  App.  13. 

When  a  contract  is  sufficient  to 
siiithorize  a  lien. — A  contract  for 
a  heating  plant  which  provides 
that  the  contractor  shall  "put  the 
job  in  condition  to  fire  upon  or 
before  the  25th  day  of  October, 
1897,  and  shall  not  be  required 
to  do  any  more  work  after  that 
date  on  said  job  until  the  pay- 
ment of  $1,000,  and  the  payment 
of  the  balance  of  the  contract 
price    is    satisfactorily    secured," 


85 


CONTRACT TIMES  AND  TERMS  OF  PAYMENT. 


[§34 


to  time  where  it  provides  for  payment  on  demand,^  or  upon  a 
written  order  at  the  end  of  every  week  -^  or  for  "final  payment 
to  be  made  within  30  days  after  completion  of  the  work."^ 
Days  of  grace  will  not  be  considered  as  extending  the  time 
beyond  the  period  limited.^  The  contract  price  need  not  nec- 
essarily be  money,^^  but  may  be  land  at  a  certain  figure/^  or 
shares  in  a  corporation. ^2  j^  such  cases,  before  the  lien  can 
be  foreclosed  and  the  amount  recovered  in  money,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  show  that  the  defendant  refuses  to  pay  in  the  manner 
provided,^^  or  that  the  contract  is  unenforceable.^*  So  if  the 
statute  makes  the  time  at  which  the  services  are  to  be  rendered 
an  essential  element  of  the  right  to  a   lien,   and  no  time   is 


is  sufficient  to  authorize  the  al- 
lowance of  a  mechanic's  lien  for 
the  $1,000  specified.  Roulet  v. 
Hogan,  203  111.  525. 

6  Blackman  v.  Marsicano,  61 
Cal.  638;  Reed  v.  Norton,  90  Cal. 
590,  26  Pac.   767,   27   Pac.  426. 

7  Reed  v.  Norton,  90  Cal.  590,  26 
Pac.  767,  27  Pac.  426. 

8  Dunlop  V.  Kennedy,  102  Cal. 
443,  34  Pac.  92;  San  Diego  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Woolredge,  90  Cal.  574, 
27  Pac.  431.  Where  old  building 
is  taken  in  part  payment,  did  not 
invalidate  contract.  California 
Iron  Const.  Co.  v.  Bradbury,  138 
Cal.  328,  71  Pac.  346.  But  not  in 
more  than  35  days  after  work,  as 
no  lien  can  be  filed  after  that 
time.  Willamette  Steam  Mills 
Lumbering  &  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Los  An- 
geles College  Co.,  94  Cal.  229,  29 
Pac.  629;  Yancy  v.  Morton,  94 
Cal.  558,  29  Pac.  1111.  If  more 
than  one  year,  lien  cannot 
be  filed  after  that  time.  Beasley 
V.  Webster,  64  111.  458;  Chisholm 
V.  Randolph,  21  111.  App.  312;  Si- 
mon  V.    Blocks,   16    111.   App.    450. 


9  Paddock  v.  Stout,  121  111.  571, 
13  N.  E.  182;  Stout  v.  Sower,  22 
111.  App.  65;  Hutchins  v.  Bautch, 
123  Wis.  394,  101  N.  W.  671. 

10  Baird  v.  Peall,  92  Cal.  235, 
28  Pac.  285;  McLaughlin  v.  Rein- 
hart,  54  Md.  71;  Dowdney  v.  Mc- 
Cullom.  59  N.  Y.  367;  Pierce  v. 
Marple,  148  Pa.  69,  30  W.  N.  C. 
31,  23  Atl.  1008,  33  Am.  St.  808; 
McMurray  v.  Brown,  91  U.  S.  (1 
Otto)  257,  23  L.  ed.  321. 

11  McMurray  v.  Brown,  91  U.  S. 
(1  Otto)  257,  23  L.  ed.  321;  Rei- 
ley  V.  Ward,  4  G.  Greene  (Iowa), 
21;  Protection  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hall, 
54  Ky.   (15  B.  Hon.)   411. 

12  Davis  &  Rankin  Bldg.  &  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Colusa  Dairy  Assn.,  55  111. 
App.   591. 

13  McMurray  v.  Brown,  91  U.  S. 
257,  23  L.  ed.  321;  Reiley  v.  Ward, 
4  G.  Greene  (Iowa),  21;  Bitter  v. 
Mouat  Lumber  &  Investment  Co., 
10  Colo.  App.  307,  51  Pac.  519; 
Dowdney  v.  McCullom,  59  N.  Y. 
367. 

14  Protection  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hall, 
54  Ky.    (15  B.  Mon.)    411. 


34] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


86 


stated  for  the  work,  there  can  be  no  lien.^^  Performance  with- 
in a  reasonable  time,^-^-'*  or  when  practicable/*^  or  as  fast  as 
ordered,  is  not  sufficient.^"  In  Illinois  if  the  contract  is  verbal 
and  the  work  done  within  one  year,  the  lien  will  lie.^^  In  a 
written  contract  the  time  is  limited  to  three  years. ^^ 

§  35.  Contract — Express  or  implied — Estoppels. — Notwith- 
standing the  early  view^  that  an  express  contract  was  in- 
dispensable, it  is  now  thoroughly  settled  the  lien  may  be  based 


15  Illiuois. — M.  Prugh  Co.  v. 
Wallace,  19S  111.  422,  64  N.  E. 
1005;  Williams  v.  Rittenhouse  & 
Embree  Co.,  198  111.  422,  64  N.  E. 
995;  Superior  Lumber  Co.  v.  Gott- 
lieb, 102  111.  App.  392;  Adler  v. 
World's  Pastime  Exposition  Co., 
26  111.  App.  528;  Senior  v.  Breb- 
nor,  22  111.  252.  In  three  years. 
Reed  v.  Boyd,  84  111.  66.  And 
these  essentials  must  be  deter- 
mined when  contract  is  entered 
into.  Cook  v.  Heald,  21  111.  425; 
Cook  V.  Vreeland,  21  111.  431; 
Cooke  V.  Haungs,  113  111.  App. 
501;  Smith  v.  Central  Lumber 
Co.,  113  111.  App.  477. 

isawebbe  v.  Curran,  198  111.  18, 
64  N.  E.  710;  Coburn  v.  Tyler,  41 
111.   354. 

16  Williams  v.  Rittenhouse  & 
Embree  Co.,  198  111.  602,  64  N.  E. 
995. 

17  Powell  V.  Webber,  79  111. 
134;  Haines  v.  Chandler,  26  111. 
App.  400.  Under  Illinois  act, 
where  contract  is  implied,  and  not 
time  expressed  for  payment,  a 
reasonable  time  cannot  be  im- 
plied. Hindert  v.  American  Trust 
&  Savings  Bank,  100  111.  App.  85. 
And  no  lien  can  be  beyond  one 
year    from    completion    of    work. 


Clark    V.    Manning,    90    111.    380; 
Grundeis  v.  Hartwell,  90  111.  324; 
George  Green  Lumber  Co.  v.  Nu- 
triment   Co.,    133    111.    App.    635; 
Concord  Apartment  House  Co.  v. 
Von    Platen,     106    111.    App.     40; 
Harvey  &  Mose  Plumbing  Co.  v. 
Wallace,    99    111.    App.    212;    Har- 
wood  V.  Brownell,  32  111.  App.  347 
Younger  v.  Louks,  7  111.  App.  280 
Austin  V.  Wohler,  5  111.  App.  300 
Graham  v.  Meehan,  4  111.  App.  522. 

IS  Illinois. — Hindert  v.  Ameri- 
can Trust  and  Savings  Bank,  198 
111.  538,  64  N.  E.  1008;  Zutter- 
meister  v.  Central  Lumber  Co., 
104  111.  App.  120;  Harvey  &  Mose 
Plumbing  Co.  v.  Wallace,  99  111. 
App.  212;  Dymond  v.  Bruhns,  200 
111.  292,  65  N.  E.  641;  Richard- 
son V.  Central  Lumber  Co.,  105 
111.  App.  358;  Levinson  v.  Malloy, 
64  111.  App.  425.  Statute  now  does 
not  require  any  particular  kind 
of  contract. 

19  Kelley  v.  Northern  Trust  Co., 
190  111.  401,  60  N.  E.  585;  M.  J. 
Fitch  Paper  Co.  v.  McDonald,  91 
111.  App.  543;  Vanderpoel  v. 
Knight,  102  111.  App.  596;  Lamon 
V.   King,  91   111.  App.  74. 

1  See  §  25. 


87 


CONTRACT EXPRESS  OR  IMPLIED ESTOPPELS. 


35 


Upon  a  contract  either  express  or  implied,  unless  the  statute 
provides  to  the  contrary.^  It  is  not  absolutely  necessary  that 
the  contract  should  be  made  with  the  owner,  it  may  be  made 
by  a  person  duly  authorized/'^  The  mere  fact  that  work  as 
done  on  a  building  belonging  to  the  person  sought  to  be 
charged,  is  not  sufificient."*  The  owner  must  do  something  or 
fail  to  do  something  from  which  fact  the  contract,  or  the  neces- 
sary consent,  may  be  implied.^  If  the  builder  abandons  his 
contract  and  leaves  material  on  the  ground  which  the  owner 
accepts  and  uses,^  or  the  owner  adopts  the  contract  as  an  en- 
tirety,''' or  in  some  cases  where  consent  is  sufficient  to  bind 
him,  if  he  knew  the  work  was  progressing,  a  lien  may  be  ob- 
tained.^    But  where  the  statute  requires  that  a  contract  must 


2  Williams  v.  Uncompahgre 
Canal  Co.,  13  Colo.  469,  22  Pac. 
806;  Cunningham  v.  Ferry,  74  111. 
426;  Carney  v.  Cook,  80  Iowa,  747, 
45  N.  W.  919;  Sturges  v.  Green, 
27  Kan.  235.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens  §  75.  Where 
the  contractor  employs  neces- 
sary workmen,  the  consent  of 
the  owner  to  the  work  done  is 
implied,  so  as  to  entitle  such 
workmen  to  a  lien.  Monaghan 
V.  Goddard,  173  Mass.  468,  53  N. 
E.  895;  Miller  v.  Neely,  59  Neb. 
539,  81  N.  W.  443.  Evidence  that 
defendant,  the  owner  of  a  house 
being  erected  by  contractors,  with 
whom  plaintiff  had  negotiated  rel- 
ative to  furnishing  a  furnace  for 
the  house,  told  plaintiff  that  he 
desired  a  more  expensive  furnace, 
and  substantially  promised  to  pay 
for  it,  to  which  arrangement  the 
contractors  consented,  is  sufficient 
to  impose  on  the  owner  a  personal 
obligation  to  pay  for  the  furnace, 
which  will  sustain  a  mechanic's 
lien    on    the    house.     Richardson 


&  Boynton  Co.  v.  Reid,  50  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  606,  3  X.  Y.  Supp.  224; 
Henderson  v.  Wasserman,  58 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  608,  12  N.  Y.  Supp. 
151;  Tom  Sweeney  Hardware  Co. 
V.  Gardner,  18  S.  Dak.  166,  99  N. 
W.  1105. 

Consent  of  owner. — York  v.  Ma- 
this,  103  Me.  67,  68  Atl.  746. 

3  See  §  26.  Williams  v.  Un- 
compahgre Canal  Co.,  13  Colo.  469, 
22   Pac.   806. 

4  Stout  V.  McLachlin,  38  Kan. 
120,  15   Pac.   902. 

J  Eichler  ,  v.  Warner,  46  Misc 
(N,  Y.)  246,  91  N.  Y.  Supp.  793; 
Nellis  v.  Bellinger,  6  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
560. 

6  Woolreich  v.  Fettretch,  51 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  640,  4  N.  Y.  Supp. 
326. 

•  "  Anderson  v.  Berg,  174  Mass. 
404,  54  N.  E.  877. 

8  IVew  York. — Fischer  v.  Jordan, 
169  N.  Y.  615,  62  N.  E.  1095;  Otis 
V.  Dodds,  90  N.  Y.  336;  Steeves  v. 
Sinclair,  171  N.  Y.  676,   64  N.  E. 


§35] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


88 


be  made,  mere  knowledge  is  not  a  sufficient  foundation  for  an 
implied  contract.^  Where  the  statute  makes  the  time  in  which 
the  work  is  to  be  completed  an  essential,  such  time  cannot  be 
implied  in  determining  whether  or  not  the  lien  exists,  but  it 
must  be  expressed  in  the  contract. i"  The  doctrine  of  estoppel 
applies  to  the  contract,  or  consent  necessary  to  make  a  valid 
contract,  within  the  mechanic's  lien  law  the  same  as  in  other 
matters,  and  when  a  man  is  silent  when  he  ought  to  speak, 
equity  will  debar  him  from  speaking  when  conscience  and 
equity  require  him  to  be  silent. ^^  Therefore,  if  the  owner 
stands  by  and  sees  work  done  on  his  land  when  he  ought  to 
speak  and  make  any  objections  he  may  have,  the  necessary 


1125;  Hurd  v.  Wing,  93  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  62,  86  N.  Y.  Supp.  907; 
Rice  V.  Culver,  57  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)  552,  68  N.  Y.  Supp.  24;  Steeves 
V.  Sinclair,  56  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
448,  67  N.  Y.  Supp.  776;  Fisclier  v. 
Jordan,  54  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  621, 
66  N.  Y.  Supp.  286.  Wtiere  a  pur- 
ciiaser  of  property  on  wliicli 
buildings  are  being  erected  under 
contract,  to  her  knowledge,  does 
not  have  her  deed  recorded  and 
gives  no  notice  of  her  purchase, 
converses  with  the  contractor, 
and  gives  directions  concerning 
what  she  wants  done,  and  keeps 
herself  fully  informed  of  the  na- 
ture of  the  work  and  its  execu- 
tion, a  finding  that  with  knowl- 
edge of  all  the  facts  she  con- 
sented to  the  performance  of  the 
work  and  thereby  subjected  her- 
self to  liability  for  the  work  done 
is  authorized.  Gilmour  v.  Col- 
cord,  96  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  358,  89 
N.  Y.  Supp.  689. 

^  Rust-Owen  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Holt,  60  Neb.  80,  82  N.  W.  112,  83 
Am.  St.  512n. 


10  Henry  v.  Applegate,  111  111. 
App.  13;  Garden  City  Banking  & 
Trust  Co.  V.  Grabe,  108  111.  App. 
453;  Pierce  v.  Barnes,  106  111. 
App.  241;  Concord  Apartment 
House  Co.  V.  Von  Platen,  106  111. 
App.  40;  Ludwig  v.  Huverstuhl, 
108  111.  App.  461;  Roulet  v.  Hogan, 
107  111.  App.  164;  Rogers  v.  Con- 
cord Apartment  House  Co.  93  111. 
App.  302. 

iiHanchey  v.  Hurley,  129  Ala. 
306,  30  So.  742;  Donaldson  v. 
Holmes,  23  111.  85,  [83].  See  Dec. 
&.  Am.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens 
§  76.  It  is  an  ancient  principle 
of  equity  that,  where  one  of  two 
persons  must  suffer  from  the  act 
of  a  third,  he  must  be  the  sufferer 
who  puts  it  in  the  power  of  a 
third  to  inflict  the  injury.  From 
this  principle  has  sprung  the  well- 
established  rule  that  one  may  not 
stand  by  without  objection  and 
see  another  in  good  faith  improve 
and  enhance  the  value  of  his 
property,  and  then  hold  onto  such 
benefits  without  paying  for  them. 
Lengelsen  v.   McGregor,   162   Ind. 


89 


CONTRACT EXPRESS  OR  IMPLIED IMPROVEMENTS. 


[§36 


contract  or  consent  will  be  implied. ^^  And  this  principle  will 
apply,  whether  he  was  a  party  to  the  original  contract,  or  not.^^ 
The  knowledge  or  acts  to  establish  an  implied  contract  must 
be  personal  knowledge  or  acts  of  the  owner. ^^  The  knowledge 
of  the  parent  cannot  be  imputed  to  a  minor,^^  nor  of  the  hus- 
band to  the  wife,^^  nor  of  a  director  to  his  corporation. ^'^  But 
the  knowledge  of  the  president  of  a  corporation  is  that  of  the 
corporation.^* 

§  36.     Contract — express    or    implied — improvements. — The 

knowledge  of  the  owner  will  not  avail  the  contractor,  unless 


258,  67  N.  E.  524,  70  N.  E.  248; 
Phillips  V.  Clark,  61  Ky.  (4  Mete.) 
348,  83  Am.  Dec.  471.  Notice  to 
manager  of  corporation  is  notice 
to  corporation.  Stearns-Rogers 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Aztec  Gold  Min.  Co., 
—New  Mex.— ,  93  Pac.  706. 

12  Donaldson  v.  Holmes,  23  111. 
85,  [83].  Willverding  v.  Offineer, 
87  Iowa  475,  54  N.  W.  592;  Evans 
V.  Cunningham,  6  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  156- 
Where  a  father  and  adult  son 
both  lived  in  the  father's  house, 
and  the  father  saw  repairs  made 
under  the  son's  direction,  the  fa- 
ther could  not  defend  against  a 
claim  of  lien.  Cannon  v.  Helfrick, 
99  Ind.  164.  Evidence  that  t,he 
owner  of  property  was  present 
at  the  making  of  a  contract  to 
construct  an  improvement  on  the 
property,  and  almost  constantly 
during  the  work,  and  that  the 
money  to  pay  for  the  construc- 
tion was  raised  by  a  mortgage  on 
the  property,  shows  her  consent 
to  the  work,  as  required  by  the 
mechanics'  lien  law.  Brunold  v. 
Glasser,  25  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  285,  53 
N.  Y.  Supp.  1021. 


13  Hellwig  v.  Blumenberg,  55 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  605,  7  N.  Y.  Supp. 
746;  Marshall  v.  Cohen,  11  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  397,  32  N.  Y.  Supp.  283; 
National  "Wall-Paper  Co.  v.  Sire, 
163  N.  Y.  122,  57  N.  E.  293,  7  N. 
Y.  Ann.  Cas.  406;  Cowen  v.  Pad- 
dock, 137  N.  Y.  188,  33  N.  E.  154; 
Miller  v.  Mead,  127  N.  Y.  544,  28 
N.  E.  387,  13  L.  R.  A.  701n. 

14  Shaw  V.  Young,  87  Me.  271, 
32  Atl.  897.  Consent  of  the  sur- 
vivor of  a  board  of  unincorporat- 
ed trustees  of  a  religious  society, 
to  the  erection  of  a  church  on 
lands  held  by  him  in  trust  for  the 
society,  was  not  shown  merely 
by  proof  that  he  lived  within  a 
quarter  of  a  mile  and  in  sight  of 
the  church,  where  he  was  up- 
wards of  97  years  of  age,  and  had 
not  acted  in  the  affairs  of  the  so- 
ciety for  many  years.  Peabody 
V.  Eastern  Methodist  Soc,  87 
Mass.  (5  Allen)  540. 

15  Bliss  V.  Patten,  5  R.  I.  376. 
i<5  Peabody    v.    Eastern    Metho- 
dist Soc,  87  Mass.   (5  Allen)   540. 

17  Lothian  v.  Wood,  55  Cal.  159. 
IS  Phelps    V.    Maxwell's    Creek 
Gold  Min.  Co.,  49  Cal.  336. 


36] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


90 


the  work  is  done  on  the  faith  and  credit  of  the  person  having 
knowledge.^  In  order  for  the  owner  to  be  bound  by  improve- 
ments made  by  a  purchaser  he  must  so  act  as  to  make  it  in- 
equitable for  his  property  to  go  free.^  Mere  knowledge  is  not 
sufficient  in  such  cases  from  which  a  contract  may  be  implied.^ 
An  owner  who  contracts  to  sell  a  building  in  process  of  erec- 
tion, will  be  liable  for  improvements  put  in  by  a  vendee  to 
complete  the  building  in  the  manner  originally  agreed  upon.^ 
Where  the  statute  does  not  require  a  contract,  but  mere  con- 
sent, knowledge  of  the  owner  of  the  fact  of  the  improvement 
will  be  sufficient  from  which  the  necessary  consent  may  be 
implied.^  Where  the  necessary  contract  is  implied,  in  order 
to  hold  the  owner  for  improvements  made  by  a  lessee,  unless 
the  contract  stipulates  that  the  lessee  is  to  erect  certain  build- 


1  Des  ^Moines  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Goode,  106  Iowa  568,  76  N.  W. 
825;  Proctor  v.  Tows,  115  111-  138, 
3  N.  E.  569. 

2  Spruck  V.  ]\IcRoberts.  139  N. 
Y.  193,  34  N.  E.  896. 

3  People's  Savings,  Loan,  etc., 
Assn.  V.  Spears,  115  Ind.  297, 
17  N.  E.  570;  Callaway  v.  Free- 
man, 29  Ga.  408.  Where  vendors 
retained  the  deeds  as  security  for 
the  price,  the  fact  that  they  were 
aware  that  a  building  was  being 
constructed  on  the  land,  but  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  contract 
for  its  erection,  did  not  give  a 
person  the  right  to  a  lien  on  the 
property  for  labor  performed  on 
the  building  during  the  time  the 
deeds  were  withheld,  under  Pub. 
St.  c.  191,  §  1,  which  provides  that 
any  person  to  whom  a  debt  is 
due  for  labor  performed  by  vir- 
tue of  an  agreement  with,  or  by 
consent  of,  the  owner,  shall  have 
a  lien.  Courtemanche  v.  Black- 
stone   Val.    St.   R.    Co.,   170   Mass. 


50,  48  N.  E.  937,  64  Am.  St.  275; 
Saunders  v.  Bennett,  160  Mass. 
48,   35   N.   E.   Ill,  39  Am.   St.  456. 

4  Weber   v.    Weatherby,    34    Md. 
656. 

5  Kealey  v.  ^Murray,  15  N.  Y. 
Supp.  403,  61  Hun  (N.  Y.)  619 
(without  opinion);  Husted  v. 
]Mathes,  77  N.  Y.  388;  Nellis  v. 
Bellinger,  6  Hun  (N.  Y.)  560; 
Voseller  v.  Slater,  25  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  368,  49  N.  Y.  Supp.  478, 
contra;  Reppard  v.  Morrison,  120 
Ga.  28,  47  S.  E.  554.  No  author- 
ity from  landlord.  Stevens  v. 
Burnham,  62  Neb.  672,  87  N.  W. 
546.  The  facts  from  which  the 
inference  of  a  consent  is  to  be 
drawn  must  be  such  as  to  indi- 
cate at  least  willingness  on  the 
part  of  the  owner,  to  have  the 
improvements  made  or  an  ac- 
quiescence in  the  means  adopted 
for  that  purpose,  with  knowledge 
of  the  object  for  which  they  are 
employed.  Cowen  v.  Paddock,  137 
N.   Y.   188,   33   N.   E.   154;    Berger 


91 


CONTRACT EXPRESS    OR    IMPLIED IMPROVEMENTS.        [§  36 


ing-s  or  make  certain  repairs,  he  will  not  be  bound.'^  The 
owner  will  not  be  bound  if  the  lease  stipulates  that  the  tenant 
shall  make  repairs  at  his  own  cost.  In  such  cases  where  it  is 
sought  to  hold  the  owner's  interest  for  improvements  made  by 
the  tenant,  the  mechanic  is  bound  by  the  terms  of  the  lease. '^ 
Knowledge  that  improvements  are  being  made  beyond  the 
amount  stipulated  will  not  bind  the  landlord.^  If  the  lease 
requires  that  the  landlord  have  a  written  notice,  he  can  not  be 
bound  unless  notice  is  given. ^"^  The  fact  that  the  landlord  is 
to  re-imburse  the  tenant  for  repairs  made  is  not  sufficient  to 
establish  an  implied  consent  or  contract. ^^  In  no  event  can 
the  landlord  be  held  unless  it  is  shown  that  the  material  or 
work  went  into  the  building.^2  jf  ^^g  tenant  is  authorized  to 
make  repairs  at  his  own  discretion, ^^  or  of  a  specified  kind,^* 
or  having  shown  the  plans  to  his  landlord  he  is  directed  to  "go 

Mfg.    Co.    V.    Zabriskie,    75    N.    Y. 


Mfg.  Co.  V.  Zabriskie,  75  N.  Y. 
Supp.  1038;  McCauley  v.  Hat- 
field, 28  N.  Y.  Supp.  648,  59  N.  Y. 
552;  Belvin  v.  Raleigh  Paper  Co., 
123  N.  Car.  138,  31  S.  E.  655;  Reed 
V.  Estes,  113  Tenn.  200,  80  S.  W. 
1086. 

6  Antlers  Park  Regent  Min.  Co. 
V.  Cunningham,  29  Colo.  284,  68 
Pac  226. 

"  Illinois. — McRae  v.  Murdoch 
Campbell  Co.,  94  111.  App.  105. 

New  Jersey. — Hervey  v.  Gay,  42 
N.  J.  L.   (13  Vroom.)    168. 

New  York. — Berger  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Zabriskie,  75  N.  Y.  Supp.  1038; 
Sunshine  v.  Morgan,  39  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  778,  81  N.  Y.  Supp.  278;  Na- 
tional Wall-Paper  Co.  v.  Sire,  37 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  405,  55  N.  Y. 
Supp.  1009,  7  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  406; 
De  Klyn  v.  Simpson,  34  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  436,  54  N.  Y.  Supp.  345. 
But  a  stipulation  to  make  all 
repairs  will  not  bind  the  owner 
for  the  tenant's  repairs.     Berger 


Supp.   1038. 

9  De  Klyn  v.  Gould,  165  N.  Y. 
282,  59  N.  E.  95,  80  Am.  St.  719, 
31  Civ.  Proc.  (N.  Y.)  223.  Un- 
less the  statute  provides  that  a 
consent  is  sufficient  mere  knowl- 
edge that  the  repairs  are  being 
done,  will  not  bind  the  owner. 
Jones  v.  Crumb,  53  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
631,  6  N.  Y.  Supp.   338. 

10  Berger  Mfg  Co.  v.  Zabris- 
kie, 75  N.  Y.  Supp.  1038;  Hartley 
V.  Murtha,  36  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
196,  56  N.  Y.  Supp.  686;  Muldoon 
V.  Pitt,  4  Daly   (N.  Y.)   105. 

11  Gates  V.  Fredericks,  5  Ariz. 
343,  52   Pac.  1118. 

12  Antlers  Park  Regent  Min.  Co. 
V.  Cunningham,  29  Colo.  284,  68 
Pac.   226. 

13  McLean  v.  Sanford,  26  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  603,  51  N.  Y.  Supp. 
678. 

1-1  .Jones  V.  Menke,  168  N.  Y.  61, 
60  N.  E.  1053. 


37] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


92 


ahead,"  then  the  landlord  will  be  bound. ^-^  In  some  states  if 
the  owner  permits  improvements  to  be  made,  or  knows  they 
are  being  made,  he  will  be  bound  unless  he  notifies  the  con- 
tractor that  he  is  not  to  be  held  liable.^^  In  such  cases  know- 
ledge on  the  part  of  the  owner  need  not  be  shown.  Facts 
stated  in  the  lease  are  sufficient  to  bind  him.^'' 

§  37.     Contract — Express    or    implied — Wife's    property. — 

There  is  now  no  difference  generally,  between  improvements 
on  a  married  woman's  property  and  those  made  by  a  feme 
sole.^  Where  the  law  requires  a  contract,  a  lien  cannot  be 
based  on  the  wife's  mere  consent  or  knowledge.^  But  where 
she  stands  by  and  sees  the  work  done,  and  does  not  disclose 
her  ownership,^  or  gives  directions  about  the  work,'*  or  receives 
the  material,  she  has  so  acted  that  the  necessary  contract  or 
consent  will  be  implied.-^  If  the  statute  requires  her  consent 
to  be  in  writing,  the  carrying  of  a  message  from  her  husband 


15  Butler  V.  Flynn,  51  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  225,  64  N.  Y.  Supp.  877, 
7  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  403;  Carey- 
Lombard  Lumber  Co.  v.  Jones,  187 
111.  203,  58  N.  E.  347. 

16  Santa  Monica  Lumber,  etc. 
Co.  V.  Hege,  119  Cal.  376,  51  Pac. 
555;  Harlan  v.  Stufflebeem,  87 
Cal.  508,  25  Pac.  686;  West  Coast 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Newkirk,  SO  Cal. 
275,  22  Pac.  231.  The  improve- 
ments need  not  be  permanent. 
Evans  v.  Judson,  120  Cal.  282, 
52  Pac  585;  Congdon  v.  Cook, 
55  Minn.  1,  56  N.  W.  253.  Cove- 
nant to  keep  in  good  repair  will 
not  bind  owner.  Aetna  Elevator 
Co.  V.  Deeves,  56  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
565,  107  N.  Y.  Supp.  63;  rehear- 
ing denied,  57  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  632, 
108  N.  Y.  Supp.  718;  and  judg- 
ment affirmed,  110  N.  Y.  Supp.  124. 

17  Evans  v.  Judson,  120  Cal. 
282,    52    Pac.    585;    Santa   Monica 


Lumber,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hege,  119 
Cal.   376,   51    Pac.    555. 

1  See  necessity  of  consent  of 
wife.     §  38. 

-  Flannery  v.  Rohrmayer,  46 
Conn.  558,  33  Am.  Rep.  36;  Lauer 
V.  Bandow,  43  Wis.  556,  28  Am. 
Rep.  571. 

3  Bruck  V.  Bowermaster,  36  111. 
App.  510;  Dennis  v.  Walsh  (City 
Ct.  Brook),  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  257. 

4  Missouri. — Leisse  v.  Schwartz, 
6  :Mo.  App.  413;  Collins  v.  Me- 
graw,  47   Mo.  495. 

PennsylTania. — Jobe  v.  Hunter, 
165  Pa.  St.  5,  30  Atl.  452,  44  Am. 
St.  639;  Bodey  v.  Thackara,  143 
Pa.  St.  171,  22  Atl.  754,  24  Am. 
St.  526,  28  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  470; 
Einstein  y.  Jamison,  95  Pa.  St. 
403. 

5  Bodey  v.  Thackara,  143  Pa. 
171,  22  Atl.  754,  24  Am.  St.  526, 
28  W.  N.  C.   (Pa.)   470. 


93  CONTRACT    WITH    MARRIED   WOMAN.  [§  38 

to  the  contractor,  will  not  bring  her  within  the  statute  f  but 
if  knowledge  is  sufficient  to  bind  her,  that  is  all  that  is  re- 
quired.''' 

§  38.  Contract  with  married  women — Executor's  right — 
Ohio  statute. — Section  3192  of  the  Ohio  statutes  provides  that 
executors  and  administrators  of  deceased  owners  shall  have 
the  same  rights  and  be  subject  to  the  same  liabilities  under  this 
chapter  as  such  owners  would  enjoy  and  be  subject  to  if  alive; 
and  when  a  married  w^oman  is  owner  of  any  such  boat,  vessel 
or  other  water  craft,  or  the  owner  of  the  land  on  which  any  such 
house,  mill,  manufactory,  or  other  building,  appurtenance, 
fixture,  bridge  or  other  structure,  or  any  gas  well,  oil  well  or 
other  well  is  situated  or  erected,  or  to  which  the  same  is  re- 
moved, as  is  mentioned  in  section  three  thousand  one  hundred 
and  eighty-four,  or  is  the  owner  of  the  lands  abutting  on  any 
such  street,  turnpike,  road,  sidewalk,  way,  drain,  ditch  or 
sewer  is  mentioned  in  section  three  thousand  one  hundred  and 
eighty-six,^  and  has  knowledge  of  any  such  construction,  erec- 
tion, alteration,  repair,  or  removal  as  is  mentioned  in  sections 
three  thousand  one  hundred  and  eighty-four,  and  three  thou- 
sand one  hundred  and  eighty-six,  the  same  being  done  under 
a  contract  with  the  husband  of  such  married  woman,  and  with- 
out her  express  objection,  such  husband  shall  be  deemed  and 


6  Bliss   V.    Patten,    5    R.    I.    376.  to    her    husband    to    use    in    the 

See  §  33.  building,    was    sufficient   to    show 

"^  Heath  v.   Solles,   73   Wis.  217,  knowledge     and      consent,    under 

40    N.   W.    804.     Evidence   that   a  Rev.  St.  1898,  3314,  giving  a  me- 

married  woman  knew,  soon  after  chanic's     lien     on     property     on 

excavation    was    begun,    that    her  which    improvements    are    made, 

husband       was       constructing     a  the     owner     "having    knowledge 

building  on   a  lot  owned  by  her,  thereof,   and  consenting  thereto." 

and   that   shortly   afterwards   she  Lentz     v.    Eimermann,    119     Wis. 

executed  a  mortgage  on  the  prem-  492,  97  N.  W.   181. 
ises,  and  turned  the  money  over  i  See   §  44. 


§  39]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN.  94 

held  to  be  the  duly  and  legally  authorized  agent  of  said  married 
woman  therein.^ 

§  39.  Contract  with  married  woman — Ohio  statute. — Un- 
der this  provision  it  has  been  expressly  held  that  a 
married  woman  is  not  liable  for  an  unauthorized  contract 
made  in  her  name  by  her  husband,  provided  she  has  no  know- 
ledge of  the  same.^  If  she  has  knowledge,  she  is  liable.^  When 
a  contract  is  completed  by  an  administrator  the  lien  of  me- 
chanics attach  as  though  the  intestate  had  finished  the  con- 
tract.3  If  a  head  contractor  dies  the  amount  due  him,  is  sub- 
ject to  the  lien  of  sub-contractors.'* 

§  40.  Contract — Ratification. — As  a  general  rule  a  true  own- 
er is  not  bound  by  the  acts  of  a  person  wrongfully  in  posses- 
sion,^ but  he  may  so  act  after  the  work  is  done  or  the  materials 
furnished,  that  the  contract  will  be  enforced  by  the  ordinary 
rules     relating     to     the     ratification     of     contracts.^      Giving 

2  1887,  March  5;  84  Gen.  Laws,  who  was  in  possession  of  the 
p.  46;  Rev.  Stat.  1880;  74  Gen.  land  under  a  contract  of  pur- 
Laws,  p.  168,  section  9;  S.  &  C.  chase,  and  became  the  owner  be- 
836.  fore  the  building  was  completed. 

1  Stichenoth  v.  Rife,  3  Ohio  Cir.  Defendant  testified  that  the  house 
Dec.  57.5,  6  Ohio  C.  C.  540.  was  built  by  his  direction,  under 

2  Heller  v.  Hohman,  5  Ohio  Cir.  the  contract  with  plaintiff;  that 
Dec.  338,  12  Ohio  C.  C-  216;  he  watched  the  progress  of  the 
Slentz  V.  Kosminsky,  Dayt.  (Ohio)  work  and  was  content  with  the 
335.  contract,    and     made      some    pay- 

3  Horton  v.  Carlisle,  13  Ohio  raents  to  plaintiff  after  he  had 
Dec.  (Re.)  113;  2  Disn.  (Ohio)  purchased  the  land.  The  ques- 
184.  tion  of  ratification  was  not  raised 

4  Bergin  v.  Braun,  15  Ohio  Dec.  by  the  pleadings,  or  submitted  to 
383,  5  Ohio  N.  P.   (N.  S.)  150.  the  jury,  but  was   argued  at  the 

1  Spruck  V.  McRoberts,  139  N.  trial  without  objection.  The  court 
Y.  193,  34  N.  E.  896;  Reppard  v.  had  the  right  to  find,  on  the  evi- 
Morrison,  120  Ga.  28,  47  S.  E.  554.  dence,  that  the  contract  was  rati- 

2  Ratification. — On  a  petition  to  fied    by    defendant.     Anderson    v. 
enforce  a  mechanic's  lien,  it  ap-  Berg,  174  Mass.  404,  54  N.  E.  877. 
peared  that  the  work  was  begun  See    Dec.    &    Am.     Dig.     tit     Me 
under  a  contract  with  defendant,  chanics'  Liens  §  77. 


95 


CONTRACT- 


-RATIFICATIO'N. 

the 


[§40 


a  note,^  or  otherwise  assuming  the  indebtedness,^ 
acknowledging  the  debt  as  a  proper  charge  against 
him,^  or  using  part  of  the  material,*'  have  been 
held  sufficient  facts  to  justify  a  ratification.  But  a  ratifica- 
tion is  not  shown  by  the  mere  occupation  of  a  wife  with  her 
husband,  of  the  building  erected."  And  the  retention  of  a  con- 
tractor's bill,*  will  not  raise  a  conclusive  presumption  of  ratifi- 
cation. A  vendee  may  bind  his  interest  by  adopting  the  con- 
tract.'' 

§  41.  Contract — Filing,  notice. — As  a  general  rule  the 
statutes  do  not  require  that  the  contract  which  is  the  basis  of 
a  lien  be  recorded  or  filed,  but  some  states,  however,  have  such 
requirements  and  they  have  been  sustained  by  the  courts.^  A 
California  statutes  provides,^  that  if  the  amount  exceeds  $1,000 
the  contract  must  be  in  writing,  filed  with  the  county  recorder, 
or  it  is  void.2  The  statute  applies  to  sub-contractors  and  ma- 
terial men.^  As  between  contractors  and  owners,^  a  slight 
mis-description  of  the  premises  will  not  defeat  the  lien.^     But 


3  Bankard  v.  Shaw,  16  Montg. 
Co.  Law  Rep'r,  137,  23  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  561,  30  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  (N.  S.) 
413. 

4  Greene  v.  McDonald,  70  Vt. 
372,  40  Atl.  1035. 

5  Scroggins  v.  National  Lumber 
Co.,  41  Neb.  195,  59  N.  W.  548. 

6  Kerrigan  v.  Fielding,  47  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  246,  62  N.  Y.  Supp. 
115.  See  also  New  Ebenezer 
Assn.  V.  Gress  Lumber  Co.,  89 
Ga.  125,  14  S.  B.  892. 

7  Rust-Owen  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Holt,  60  Neb.  80,  82  N.  W.  112,  83 
Am.  St.  512n;  Garnett  v.  Berry,  3 
Mo.  App.  197. 

8  Engfer  v.  Roemer,  71  Wis.  11, 
36  N.  W.  618. 

0  Courtemanche     v.    Blackstone 


Val.  St.  R.  Co.,  170  Mass.  50,  48 
N.  E.  937,  64  Am.  St.  275.  Post- 
ing notice,  mortgagee  need  not 
Stearns-Roger  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Aztec 
Gold  Min.,  etc.,  Co.,  New  Mexico 
93  Pac.  706. 

1  Kellogg  V.  Howes,  81  Cal.  170, 
22  Pac.  509,  6  L.  R.  A.  588.  See 
Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics' 
Liens  §  74. 

2  Code  Civ.  Prac.  1183. 

3  Spinney  v.  Griffith,  98  Cal. 
149,  32  Pac.  974;  Morris  v.  Wil- 
son,  97   Cal.  644,   32  Pac.  801. 

4  Reed  v.  Norton,  90  Cal.  590, 
26  Pac.  767,  27  Pac.  426. 

5  Hinckley  v.  Field's  Biscuit, 
etc.,  Co.,  91  Cal.  136.  27  Pac.  594. 

c  Dunlop  V.  Kennedy  (Cal.),  34 
Pac.  92. 


41 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


96 


the  amount  must  be  stated."  So  in  Louisiana  it  must  be  re- 
corded.* And  though  not  invalid  between  parties  if  not  so 
recorded^  it  will  at  least  lose  its  priority  over  previous  liens. ^'^ 
The  Louisiana  courts  require  a  strict  compliance  with  these 
registry  statutes. ^^  Where  the  statute  permits  a  workman  to 
record  his  lien,  the  owner  can  not  have  it  taken  off  without 
satisfaction.^-     The  statute  must  be  followed  where  it  requires 


"  Snell  V.  Bradbury,  139  Cal. 
379,  73  Pac.  150. 

8  Civ.  Code  art.  3274. 

9  Van  Loan  v.  Heffner,  30  La. 
Ann.  1213;  Roberts  v.  Hyde,  15 
La.  Ann.  51;  Townsend  v.  Har- 
rison, 2  La.  Ann.   174. 

10  Wheelwright  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  Canal  &  Transp.  Co.,  47  La. 
Ann.  533,  17  So.  133;  State  v.  Re- 
corder of  Mortgages,  28  La.  Ann. 
534;  Citizens'  Bank  of  Louisiana 
V.  St.  Louis  Hotel  Assn.,  27  La. 
Ann.  460;  Taylor  v.  Crain,  16  La. 
(O.  S.)  290;  Spence  v.  Brooks,  6 
La.  Ann.  63;  State  v.  Mexican 
Gulf  R.  Co..  5  La.  Ann.  333;  First 
Municipality  v.  Hall,  2  La.  Ann. 
549;  Succession  of  Cox,  32  La. 
Ann.  1035. 

11  Bird  V.  Lobdell,  28  La.  Ann. 
305;  Kohn  v.  McHatton,  20  La. 
Ann.  485;  Taylor  v.  Crain,  16 
La.  (O.  S.)  290;  Turner  v.  Par- 
ker, 10  Rob.  (La.)  154.  The  ob- 
ject of  registry  is  notice.  When 
an  instrument  is  recorded,  whose 
registry  is  intended  to  affect  the 
rights  of  third  parties,  as  a  priv- 
ilege, it  should  contain  and  show 
upon  its  face,  and  not  by  refer- 
ence to  documents  to  be  found 
elsewhere,  or  to  proceedings  to 
be  instituted  at  some  future  time, 
all  the  essential  facts  which  would 
go  to  create  and  fix  the  privilege. 


Wheelright  v.  St.  Louis,  etc..  Ca- 
nal &  Transp.  Co-,  47  La.  Ann. 
533,  17  So.  133. 

12  Florance  v.  Mercier,  2  La.  (O. 
S.)  487.  Under  a  former  law,  the 
workman  was  not  required  to  re- 
cord it,  to  protect  his  claim.  Mil- 
laudon  v.  New  Orleans  Water  Co., 
11  Mart.  (O.  S.)  (La.)  278;  Tur- 
pin  v.  His  Creditors,  9  Mart.  (O. 
S.)  (La.)  562;  Lafon  v.  Sadler,  4 
Mart.  (O.  S.)  (La.)  477.  It  only 
applied  to  undertakers.  Nolte  v. 
His  Creditors,  6  Mart.  (N.  S.) 
(La.)  168;  Miller  v.  Mercier,  3 
Mart.  (N.  S.)  (La.)  229;  Davidson 
V.  Campbell,   5  Manitoba,   250. 

A  niemoraadnm  of  a  bnilding 
contract,  filed  in  the  recorder's 
office,  recited  that  the  general 
character  of  the  work  to  be  done 
was  raising  and  making  altera- 
tions, additions  and  repairs  to  a 
two-story  frame  building  to  be 
used  for  two  tenements.  It  was 
held  that  the  memorandum  suffi- 
ciently showed  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  work  to  be  done. 
Joost  V.  Sullivan,  111  Cal.  286, 
43  Pac.  896. 

Contract  contemplated. — Under 
Rev.  St.  art.  3165,  providing  that, 
in  order  to  secure  lien  for  ma- 
terial furnished,  the  person  fur- 
nishing it  shall  have  the  right, 
within  six  months  after  the  debt 


97 


NOTICE  FROM  OWNER  TO  PREVENT  LIEN. 


42 


the  plans  and  specifications  to  be  filed  and  recorded. ^^  The 
recording  and  registration  statutes  are  generally  held  to  apply 
to  all  parties  interested,  laborers  and  material  men,  as  well  as 
owners.^^ 

§  42.  Notice  from  owner  to  prevent  lien. — In  some  states 
the  statutes  permit  the  owners  to  give  a  notice  that  will  relieve 
them  from  liability. ^^  These  statutes  must  be  closely  followed. ^'^ 
A  verbal  notice  will  not  suffice  if  the  statute  requires  a  written 


becomes  due,  to  file  his  contract 
with  the  county  clerk,  the  con- 
tract contemplated  was  the  one 
by  virtue  of  which  the  material 
was  furnished,  and  a  note  in  con- 
sideration of  such  material,  giv- 
en after  it  was  furnished  will  not 
support  a  claim  for  a  lien.  Lyon 
V.  Ozee,  66  Tex.  95,  17  S.  W.  405. 

13  See  §  32.  California  Civ. 
Code  Proc.  1183.  Yancey  v. 
Morton,  94  Cal.  558,  29  Pac.  1111; 
Donnelly  v.  Adams,  127  Cal.  24, 
59  Pac.  208;  Reed  v.  Norton,  90 
Cal.  590,  26  Pac.  767,  27  Pac.  426; 
Holland  v.  Wilson,  76  Cal.  434,  18 
Pac.  412;  New  Jersey  Mechanics' 
Lien  act,  Nix.  Dig.  487. 

14  Greig  v.  Riordan,  99  Cal.  316, 
33  Pac.  913.  In  New  Jersey  it  is 
necessary  that  the  specifications 
be  filed,  if  the  building  is  to  be 
exempted  from  liens.  Babbitt  v. 
Condon,  27  N.  J.  L.  154;  Ayres  v. 
Revere,  25  N.  J.  L.  474.  And  in 
Texas  for  purpose  of  registration, 
the  statute  divides  contracts  out 
of  which  the  mechanic's  lien  arise, 
into  two  kinds,  verbal  and  writ- 
ten. Martin  v.  Roberts,  57  Tex. 
564. 

15  California.— Civil  Code,  1192; 
Minnesota.— Gen.  Stat.  1878,  ch. 
90     §       3;      Nevada. — Mechanics' 

7 


lien  law  §  1;  Oregon. — Code,  § 
3672;  Washington.— Code  §  1965. 
See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechan- 
ics' Liens  §  78. 

10  Silvester  v.  Coe  Quartz  Mine 
Co.,  80  Cal.  510,  22  Pac.  217; 
West  Coast  Lumber  Co.  v.  Apfield, 
86  Cal.  335,  24  Pac.  993.  Under 
Code  Civ.  Proc.  1192,  relieving  an 
owner  of  land  from  mechanic's 
lien  if  he  shall,  "within  three  days 
after  he  shall  have  obtained 
knowledge  of  the  construction — 
or  the  intended  construction," 
post  on  the  land  a  notice  disaf- 
firming liability,  such  notice  may 
be  posted  within  three  days  after 
construction  is  actually  com- 
menced on  leased  land,  though  its 
owner  had  knowledge  for  a  long- 
er period  of  the  intention  to  con- 
struct. Birch  V.  Magic  Transit 
Co.,  139  Cal.  496,  73  Pac.  238.  See 
also  Allen  v.  Rowe,  19  Ore.  188, 
23  Pac.  901;  Wheaton  v.  Berg,  50 
Minn.  525,  52  N-  W.  926;  John 
Martin  Lumber  Co.  v.  Howard, 
49  Minn.  404,  52  N.  W.  34;  Kraus 
V.  Murphy,  38  Minn.  422,  38  N. 
W.  112.  Mechanic's  Lien  Law 
1889,  §  5,  subjecting  the  estate  of 
a  landowner  to  a  lien  for  improve- 
ments made  by  others  with  his 
knowledge,    unless    he    shall    give 


43] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN, 


98 


notice.^"  Under  such  statutes,  a  mortgagee  is  not  an  owner.^^ 
However,  if  the  lease  makes  the  owner  hable,  notice  will  not 
relieve  him.^^ 

§  43.  Persons  entitled  to  lien  by  direct  contract. — When  the 
mechanic's  lien  laws  were  first  passed  they  applied  only  to 
persons  who  might  have  furnished  labor  or  material  for  the 
erection  of  the  improvement  under  a  contract  direct  with  the 
owner  and  very  often  designated  these  particular  mechanics 
who  might  avail  themselves  of  the  law.  Now  there  are 
three  classes  of  persons  who  may  avail  themselves  of  the  law 
under  a  direct  contract  with  the  owner,  these  are,  First,  per- 
sons who  perform  labor  themselves,  second,  persons  who 
furnish  materials,  third,  persons  who  contract  for  and  do  the 
work  themselves  or  through  others.  The  first  of  these  are 
usually  termed  laborers,  second,  material  men,  third,  con- 
tractors. The  first  two  designated  are  used  when  the  person 
furnishes  labor  and  materials  to  a  contractor,  and  when  they 
are  serving  in  that  capacity  they  usually  have  their  lien  under 
the  rights  conferred  upon  a  sub-contractor.  The  statute  is 
not  now  limited  to  particular  mechanics,  but  usually  uses  the  word 
"any  person"  furnishing  material,  or  labor  etc.^     In  order  to 


the  notice  of  his  want  of  consent 
as  therein  prescribed,  casts  on  the 
landowner  the  burden  of  excusing 
his  default  to  comply  with  the 
law,  making  the  improvement 
prima  facie  evidence  that  it  was 
made  with  his  consent.  Wheaton 
V.  Berg,  50  Minn.  525,  52  N.  W. 
926.  See  also  Nottingham  v.  Mc- 
Kendrick,  38  Ore.  495,  63  Pac. 
822. 

1'  Shaw  V.  Tompson,  105  Mass. 
345;  Gould  v.  Wise,  18  Nev.  253, 
3  Pac.  30;  Title  Guarantee  & 
Trust  Co.  V.  Wrenn,  35  Ore.  271, 
56  Pac.  271;  Allen  v.  Rowe,  19 
Ore.    188,    23    Pac.    901.      Under 


Code,  §  1965,  providing  that  the 
notice  to  prevent  a  lien  from  at- 
taching to  the  owner's  interest, 
shall  be  given  10  days  after  he 
has  notice  of  the  making  of  the 
improvement,  his  interest  is  not 
subject  to  a  lien  because  of  his 
failure  to  give  such  notice,  unless 
it  affirmatively  appears  that  he 
had  notice  that  the  improvement 
was  being  made.  Cutter  v.  Strie- 
gel,  4  Wash.  346,  30  Pac.  326. 

IS  Williams  v.  Santa  Clara  Min. 
Co.,  66  Cal.  193,  5  Pac.  85. 

19  Hall  V.  Parker,  94  Pa.  St.  87, 
109. 

1  Sweet  V.   James,  2  R.  I.   270; 


99  PERSONS  ENTITLED  TO  LIEN   BY  DIRECT  CONTRACT.  [§  43 

come  within  the  statute  the  work  done  must  be  of  a  lienable 
kind.2  When  the  statute  limited  its  application  to  "mechanics" 
and  "artisans"  it  was  held  that  one  who  owned  a  sawmill  and 
machinery,  and  works  therein,  not  as  a  mere  speculator  or 
buyer  and  seller  of  lumber,  but  in  shaping  and  fitting  lumber 
to  be  useful  as  materials  in  the  building,  came  within  the 
term.3  It  has  been  held  that  a  plasterer  is  not  a  "mason"  or 
"carpenter"  but  is  included  in  the  term  "laborer"  or  "me- 
chanic."^ Neither  is  a  mechanic  necessarily  a  "contractor,"^ 
although  a  carpenter  may  be  both  a  "mechanic"  and  a  "car- 
penter."^ House  painters,'^  and  paper  hangers,  are  "mechanics."^ 
But  a  man  who  furnishes  lumber  for  a  building  is  neither  an 
"artisan,"  "builder"  nor  a  "mechanic."^  A  teamster  has  been 
held  to  be  a  manual  "laborer."i^  A  miner  is  a  "laborer."^^  But 
a  person  employed  to  act  as  a  clerk,  and  make  himself  gen- 
erally useful,  is  not  a  "laborer"  within  the  meaning  of  the 
statute.^-  Status  as  a  "laborer"  does  not  depend  upon  whether 
the  person  is  employed  by  the  day  or  the  week  or  month.^^ 
Neither  will  the  fact  that  the  person  is  not  a  mechanic,  pre- 
vent him  from  coming  within  the  term  "laborer."^^  But  labor- 
ers working  away  from  the  building  or  improvement,  as  for  in- 

Garing    v.    Hunt    and    Claris,    27  7  Merrigan  v.   English,   9   Mont. 

Ont.    149.      See    §§  9,    14    16    and  113,  22  Pac.  454,  5  L.  R.  A.  837. 

Dec.    &  Am.   Dig.    tit.   Mechanics'  s  Freeman   v.    Gilpin,    9    Pa.   L. 

Liens,   §79.  J.  427. 

2  Getty  V.  Ames,  30  Ore.  573,  48  ^  Duncan  v.  Bateman,  23  Ark. 
Pac.  356;  Ah  Louis  v.  Harwood,  327,  79  Am.  Dec.  109;  Boutner  v. 
140  Cal.   500,  74  Pac.  41.  Kent,  23  Ark.  389. 

3  Gulledge  v.  Freddy,  32  Ark.  1°  McElwaine  v.  Hosey,  135  Ind. 
433.  481,  35  N.  E.  272. 

4  Fox  V.  Rucker,  30  Ga.  525;  n  Holden  v.  Bright  Prospects 
Merrigan  v.  English,  9  Mont.  113,  Gold  Mining  and  Development  Co., 
22  Pac.  454,  5  L.  R.  A.  837;   Par-  6  Brit.  Col.  L.  439. 

ker  V.  Bell,  7  Gray  (Mass.)  429.  ^~  Nash    v.    Southwick,    120    N. 

5  Savannah,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.      Car.  459,  27  S.  E.  127. 

Grant,  56  Ga.  68.  13  Ah    Louis    v.    Harwood,    140 

f-  Thurman    v.    Pettitt,    72    Ga.      Cal.  500,  74  Pac.  41. 
38.  14  Vincent    v.    Snoqualmie    Mill 

Co.,   7   Wash.   566,   35   Pac.   396. 


§  44]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN.  100 

Stance,  making  brick  in  the  contractor's  brickyard,  are  not  en- 
titled to  a  lien  as  laborers.^^ 

§  44.    Lien  under  contract  direct  with  owner — Ohio  statute. 

— Section  3184  provides  that  every  person  who  shall  do  or  per- 
form any  work  or  labor  upon  or  furnishes  machinery,  material 
or  fuel  for  constructing,  altering,  or  repairing  a  boat,  or  ves- 
sel, or  other  water  craft,  or  for  erecting,  altering,  repairing  or 
removing  a  house,  mill,  manufactory,  or  any  furnace  or  fur- 
nace material  therein,  or  other  building,  appurtenance,  fixture, 
bridge,  or  other  structure,  or  for  digging,  drilling,  boring, 
operation,  completing  or  repairing  of  any  gas  well,  oil  well,  or 
any  other  well,  or  performs  labor  in  altering,  repairing,  or  con- 
structing any  oil  derrick,  oil  tank,  oil  or  gas  pipe  line,  or  fur- 
nishes tile  for  the  drainage  of  any  lot  or  land  by  virtue  of  a  con- 
tract, expressed  or  implied,  with  the  owner,  part  owner  or 
lessee,  of  any  interest  in  real  estate  or  the  authorized  agent  of 
the  owner,  part  owner,  or  lessee  of  any  interest  in  real  estate, 
shall  have  a  lien  to  secure  payment  of  the  same  upon  such 
boat,  vessel,  or  other  water  craft,  or  upon  such  house,  mill, 
manufactory,  furnace  or  other  building,  or  appurtenance,  fix- 
ture, bridge,  or  other  structure,  or  upon  such  gas  well,  oil  well, 
or  any  other  well,  or  upon  such  oil  derrick,  oil  tank,  oil  or  gas 
pipe  line,  and  upon  the  material  or  machinery  so  furnished, 
and  upon  the  interest,  leasehold  or  otherwise  of  the  owner, 
part  owner,  or  lessee  in  the  lot  of  land  upon  which  the  same 
may  stand,  or  to  which  the  same  may  be  removed.  (97  Ohio 
Laws,  p.  499.) 

1.     Construction  generally. 

These  mechanics'  liens  are  considered  to  be  in  derogation 
of  the  common  law,  and  therefore  when  the  question  under 
consideration  is,  whether  or  not  the  law  covers  a  certain  kind 
of  property,  it  is  strictly  construed.  But  even  then,  no  narrow 
construction  is  to  be  given  to  it.     This  construction  is  given 

15  Haynes     v.    Holland     (Tenn.       Ch.  App.  189S),  48  S.  W.  400. 


101  DIRECT   CONTRACT    WITH    OWNER OHIO   STATUTE.  [§  44 

upon  the  theory  that  the  courts  cannot  create  liens,  they  can 
only  enforce  the  law  in  reference  to  them.  If  the  question 
before  the  court,  is  as  to  the  enforcement  of  the  lien,  or  the 
lien  right,  and  not  as  to  whether  it  is  within  the  terms  of  the 
statute,  it  is  then  considered  to  be  of  a  remedial  character,  and 
is  given  a  liberal  construction.^  The  law  of  the  place  where 
the  contract  is  to  be  enforced  governs  and  controls  its  con- 
struction.2  While  the  lien  exists  only  by  the  force  of  some 
statute,'*  yet  it  is  brought  into  being  by  the  acts  of  the  owner 
in  employing  and  contracting  for  the  work  to  be  done.^  Laws 
providing  for  these  liens  are  founded  upon  the  highest  public 
policy  and  are  constitutional  and  valid. ^  Considerable  con- 
troversy was  had  in  this  state  over  a  previous  statute  which 
sought  to  make  the  owner  directly  responsible  to  a  subcon- 
tractor or  material  man.  Our  Supreme  Court,  however,  finally 
held  that  it  was  unconstitutional.'^  The  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  however,  arrived  at  the  opposite  conclusion. ^ 

2.     Who  may  acquire. 

The  language  of  the  various  sections  of  the  Ohio  Statute, 
which  prescribe  the  individual  or  person  who  may  claim  pro- 
visions of  the  statute,  use  the  words  "every  person."  This  is 
following  the  general  trend  of  legislation  in  the  various  states. 

2  Bullock  V.  Horn,  44  Ohio  St.  4  McCune  v.  Snyder,  8  Ohio 
420,  7  N.  E.  737;  Edwards  v.  Ed-  Dec.  316,  reversed;  McCune  v. 
wards,  24  Ohio  St.  402;  Thomas  v.  Snyder,  9  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  572,  18 
Huesman,  10  Ohio  St.  152;   Beck-  Ohio  C.  C.  24. 

el   V.   Petticrew,    6    Ohio   St.   247;  5  in  re   Beck  Provision  Co.,   11 

Rutherford  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Ohio  Fed.  Dec.  449. 

Co.,  35  Ohio  St.  559 ;  Smith  Bridge  e  Trust    v.    Miami    Oil    Co.,    10 

Co.  V.  Bowman,  41  Ohio  St.  37,  52  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  372,  19  Ohio  C.  C. 

Am.   Rep.    67;    Lapham    v.    Rans-  727. 

ford,  27  Ohio  C.  C.  80,  5  Ohio  C.  ^  Palmer  v.  Tingle,  55  Ohio  St. 

C.    (N.   S.)    577,   affirmed,  74   Ohio  423,  45  N.  E.  313;    affirming  Pal- 

St.  497,  78  N.  E.  1130.     See  §  8.  mer   v.    Tingle,    6   Ohio   Cir.    Dec. 

3  Mack   v.    DeGraff,    etc.,   Quar-  709,  9  Ohio  C.  C.  708. 

ries,  57  Ohio  St.  463,  49  N.  E.  697,  s  Great  Southern  Fireproof  Ho- 

63  Am.  St.  729.     See  §  3.  tel    Co.    v.    Jones,    14    Ohio    Fed. 


§  44]  CONDITIONS   GIVING  RIGHT   TO   LIEN.  102 

In  the  earlier  history  of  mechanics'  lien  law,  the  language  re- 
stricted the  application  of  the  statute  to  mechanics,  laborers, 
etc.  This  broad  term  would  in  effect  include  any  person,  either 
natural  or  artificial,  that  might  perform  the  labor  or  furnish 
the  materials  for  which  a  lien  is  granted.  If  the  person  should 
die,  the  administrator  may  complete  the  work.^  If  a  person 
under  disability,  such  as  a  minor,  should  furnish  such  material, 
the  owner  of  the  property  receiving  the  benefit  of  his  labor  will 
not  be  permitted  to  take  advantage  of  this  disability.  In  such 
a  case  the  owner  should  disaffirm  the  contract  before  it  is  exe- 
cuted. This  term  will  also  include  non-residents.^^  In  accord 
with  this  broad  holding  of  the  term,  an  architect  is  included.^^ 
The  promoters  of  an  enterprise  are  held  however,  not  to  come 
within  its  meaning.^^  Qf  course  it  would  include  a  partner- 
ship and  under  certain  conditions  may  be  held  to  include  a  re- 
ceiver, and  an  assignee,  where  the  person  furnishing  the  ma- 
terial makes  an  assignment  for  the  benefit  of  creditors.  There 
is  not  much  doubt  but  that  the  assignee,  of  a  perfected  lien 
can  enforce  the  same,  but  it  is  extremely  doubtful  whether  the 
assignment  of  a  money  claim  will  carry  with  it  the  right  to  per- 
fect the  lien.  The  authorities  in  this  state  seem  to  be  against 
that  proposition.!-^  The  assignment  of  the  owner  for  the  bene- 
fit of  creditors  does  not  defeat  the  lien.^'* 

3.     Kind  of  services. 

Under  Section  3184,  if  the  "work,"  "labor,"  "machinery" 
"material,"  or  "fuel,"  is  done  or  furnished  for  a  "boat,"  "vessel," 
or  other  water-craft,  it  must  be  in  "constructing,"  "altering" 

Dec.  337,  193  U.  S.  532,  48  L.  ed.  ^-  Burnap     v.    Sylvania    Butter 

778,  24  Sup.  Ct.  576.  Co.,  5  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  582,  12  Ohio 

9  Vernon  v.  Harper,  79  Ohio  St.      C  C.  639. 

See  §§  9,  26.  i3  Hamilton    v.    Stillwaugh,    11 

10  Mack  V.  DeGraff,  etc.,  Quar-      Ohio  C.  C.   182,   5   Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 
ries,    57    Ohio    St.    463,    49    N-    E.      324.     See  §§  9,  165. 

697,  63  Am.  St.  729.  i^  Hart    v.    Globe    Iron    Works, 

11  Phoenix     Furniture     Co.     v.      37  Ohio  St.  75. 
Put-in-Bay  Hotel  Co.,  9  Ohio  Fed. 

Dec.   2,  66  Fed.   683. 


103  WHO  MAY  ACQUIRE OHIO  STATUTE.  [§  44 

or  "repairing,"  the  same.  If  it  is  furnished  on  a  "house,"  "mill," 
"manufactory,"  "furnace,"  or  other  building,  "appurtenance," 
"bridge"  or  other  structure,  it  must  be  in  "erecting,"  "alter- 
ing," "repairing"  or  "removing"  the  same.  If  such  work 
is  done  on  a  "gas  well,"  "oil  well,"  or  any  other  well,  it  must 
be  in  "digging,"  "drilling,"  "boring,"  "operation,"  "complet- 
ing," or  "repairing"  the  same.  If  the  labor  is  done  on  an  "oil 
derrick,"  "oil  tank,'  "oil  or  gas  pipe  line,"  it  must  be  in  "alter- 
ing," "repairing"  or  "constructing"  the  same,  and  if  the  lien  is 
claimed  for  drainage  of  any  lot  or  land,  it  must  be  for  furnish- 
ing tile. 

A  subsequent  section  (3186)  might  likewise  include  the  tile 
furnished  for  drainage. 

Under  Section  3184,  provision  is  made  for  labor  in  mining 
coal.  Under  this  section,  relating  to  a  principal  contractor, 
the  intent  of  furnishing  the  material  would  not  be  of  very 
great  importance  for  if  used  in  the  building,  it  would  be  pre- 
sumed that  the  contractor  had  reserved  the  right  to  file  the 
lien.  However,  the  materials  must  be  of  a  kind  that  are  used 
in  the  various  kinds  of  work  above  indicated,  and  must  be 
purchased  under  a  contract  express  or  implied,  that  the  ma- 
terials were  for  use  upon  the  improvement  as  claimed  in  the  lien.^^ 
It  does  not  include  the  tools  used  in  its  construction  or  lum- 
ber for  scafifolding,  or  board  of  hands,  or  matters  of  like  char- 
acter. Where  the  term,  "machinery"  is  used,  it  is  held  that  it 
applies  only  to  such  as  was  used  in  the  construction  of  a  house 
and  left  there. ^'^  Whether  plans  and  specifications  discon- 
nected from  the  labor  of  a  superintendent  will  be  included 
is  not  settled. ^'^  Materials  are  delivered  when  the  title  vests  in 
a  head  contractor.^^ 

15  Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2  Ohio  i^  phoenix  Furniture  Co.  v. 
St.  114.     See  §  16.                                    Put-in-Bay  Hotel  Co.,  9  Ohio  Fed. 

16  Bender  v.  Stettinius,  10  Ohio      Dec.  2,  66  Fed.  683. 

Dec.    (Re.)    186,   19   Ohio   L.   Bull.  is  Franklin  Bank  v.  Cincinnati, 

163.     See   §18.  10    Ohio    Dec.    545,    8    Ohio    N.    P. 

517.     See  §§  16-22. 


§44]  CONDITIONS   GIVING   RIGHT   TO   LIEN.  104 

4.     Character  of  structure  subject  to  lien. 

Sections  3184,  3184a  and  3186,  would  seem  to  cover  almost 
all  kinds  of  structure  or  improvements. 

Section  3184  provides  for  a  lien  on  a  "boat,"  or  "vessel,"  or 
other  "water-craft,"  "house,"  "mill,"  "manufactory,"  "furnace," 
or  other  "building,"  "appurtenance,"  "fixture,"  "bridge,"  or  other 
structure,  or  any  "gas  well,"  "oil  well,"  or  any  other  well,  or 
"oil  derrick,"  "oil  tank,"  "oil"  or  "gas  pipe  line,"  as  well  as 
"tile"  for  drainage. 

Under  3184a,  labor  in  coal  mining  is  provided  for,  and  under 
3186,  improvements  included  in  any  "street,"  "turnpike,"  "road," 
"sidew^alk,"  "way,"  "drain,"  "ditch,"  or  "sewer." 

In  one  case,  it  was  held  that  work  done  and  labor  performed 
in  grading  and  sodding  real  estate.  Would  not  be  included. ^^ 
In  another  case  where  sod  was  furnished  to  a  public  park,  it 
was  included.-*^  The  statute  does  not  apply  to  public  build- 
ings,2i  unless  it  is  expressly  so  provided  in  the  statute.^^  An 
"oil  well"  consists  of  the  hole,  drive  pipe,  casing  and  tubing.^^ 
A  lien  on  a  mill  will  include  all  appurtenances,  in- 
cluding everything  used  to  drive,  as  engine,  boiler  piping,  belt- 
ing, but  does  not  include  planers,  tenant  machines  or  machines 
not  set  up.^^  The  statute  does  not  include  a  fence  built  for 
temporary  purpose  not  included  in  principal  contract,^^  nor 
railroad   real   estate,-*^   but   may   include   a  railroad   bridge.^^^ 

19  Stichenotli    v.    Rife,    3    Ohio  ed  for  an  electric  plant  is  an  ap- 

Clr.    Dec.    575,    6    Ohio   C-   C.   540.  purtenance.    Brush  Electric  Co.  v. 

See  §  12.  Warwick    Mfg.    Co.,    6    Ohio    Dec. 

2<^'  Fox   V.    Wunker,   9    Ohio   Cir.  475,  4  Ohio  N.  P.  279. 

Dec.  176,  18  Ohio  C.  C.  610.     See  24Gashe    v.    Ohio    Lumber    Co., 

§  15.  5  Ohio  Dec.  130,  31  Ohio  L.  Bull. 

21  Lumber    Co.    v.    Purdum.    41  189. 

Ohio  St.  373.  2.-.  Van  Cleve  Glass  Co.  v.  Wame- 

22  Clark  V.  Haggerty,  3  Ohio  Cir.  link,  2  Ohio  Dec.  163,  1  Ohio  N. 
Dec.  118,  5  Ohio  C.  C.  235,  affd.  26      P.  203. 

Ohio  L.  Bull.   376.  20  Smith  Bridge  Co.  v.  Bowman, 

23  Devine  v.  Taylor,  4  Ohio  Cir.  41  Ohio  St.  37,  52  Am.  Rep.  67. 
Dec.  248,  12  Ohio  C.  C.  723,  1  Ohio      See  §  14. 

Dec.  153.     A  reservoir  construct-  20a  Rutherford      v.      Cincinnati, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Ohio  St.  559. 


105  CONTRACT   WITH   OWNER — OHIO.  [§44 

5.     Contract  with  the  owner. 

There  can  be  no  lien  in  Ohio,  either  between  the  contractor 
or  the  subcontractor,  and  a  person  who  owns  the  land  upon 
which  the  improvement  is  located,  unless  there  be  a  contract 
express  or  implied. 2'  It  therefore  becomes  one  of  the  essen- 
tials to  show  that  there  was  a  valid  contract  between  the 
owner  and  the  principal  contractor,  w^hich  could  be  enforced 
in  an  ordinary  action  at  law,  for  recovery  of  a  debt.  As  a  gen- 
eral proposition,  it  may  be  said  that  such  a  contract  must  be  made 
with  an  owner  who  is  capable  of  contracting.  This  will  exclude 
infants,  and  persons  under  like  disability.  A  married  woman 
will  not  be  excluded,  and  the  statute  now  specifically  pro- 
vides that  if  the  work  is  done  under  contract  with  the  husband 
of  a  married  woman  without  her  express  objection,  he  is 
deemed  her  legally  authorized  agent.^^  Of  course  before  a 
married  woman  can  be  bound,  she  must  have  knowledge  of 
such  work.  A  contract,  as  between  owner  and  principal  con- 
tractor, may  be  presumed  from  the  knowledge  of  the  parties.^^ 
If  the  work  is  done  under  contract  with  any  other  person  than 
that  of  an  owner,  no  Hen  will  exist.^^  Even  the  fact  that  a 
certain  person  was  in  possession  will  not  create  a  lien 
against  the  true  owner.-"^^  A  vendee  in  possession  can  only 
make  his  interest  liable.  This  interest  would  be  the  value  of 
the  property  conveyed  less  the  purchase  price  unpaid.^^ 


27  Portsmouth  Iron  Co.  v.  Mur-  ment  v.  Railway  Co.,  61  Ohio  St. 
ray,   38   Ohio   St.   323.     See   §§  24,  647,  57  N.  E.  1131. 

35.  3ipiiberl  v.  Davis,  4  Ohio  Dec. 

28  See  §38.  (Re.)    496,    2    Clev.    L.    Rec.    265; 

29  Hazard    Powder    Co.   v.    Loo-  Jerecki    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Struther,    8 
mis,    13    Ohio    Dec.    (Re.)    333,    2  Ohio  Dec.  5,  14  Ohio  C.  C.  400- 
Disney  (Ohio)  544.  "2  Mutual  Aid  Bldg.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

soFeike    v.   Cincinnati,    etc.,   R.  Gashe,  56  Ohio  St.  273,  46  N.  E. 

Co.,  7  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  652,  14  Ohio  985.     See  §§  35,  36,  37. 
C.  C.  186,  affirmed  (unrep.) ;  Case- 


§  44]  CONDITIONS   GIVING   RIGHT   TO   LIEN.  106 

6.       Who  is  owner. 

A  subsequent  section  of  the  statute,  3184f,  extends  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  owner  to  every  person,  including'  cestui  que 
trust,  for  whose  immediate  use,  enjoyment  or  benefit,  any 
"building,"  "erection"  or  "improvement"  shall  be  made.  So 
under  the  statutes  of  Ohio,  the  word  owner  is  held  to  include 
whatever  species  of  title  the  person  making  the  contract  had  in 
the  property.  Possession  is  one  of  the  lowest  species  of  title, 
and  yet,  courts  have  held  that  it  is  sufficient  to  make  the  holder 
of  it  an  owner  within  the  statute.-^-"  But  where  some  persons 
were  merely  subscribers  to  the  contract  for  the  purchase  of  a 
lot,  upon  which  a  building  is  to  be  erected,  they  were  not  such 
owners  as  come  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute.^^ 

It  is  specially  provided  (3184)  as  to  the  rights,  where  the 
contract  is  made  with  the  lessee,  when  a  person  comes  within 
the  meaning  of  this  term. 

A  husband  is  an  owner  so  far  as  his  curtesy  rights  are 
concerned,  and  so  with  a  widow  in  reference  to  her  dower 
right.  In  either  case,  however,  it  is  necessary  that  the  dower 
be  assigned.  An  inchoate  right  is  not  sufficient.  An  infant 
can  only  be  an  owner  within  the  law  provided  he  ratified  his 
contract  after  he  became  of  age.  Neither  a  guardian  nor  an 
administrator  can  be  held  to  be  an  owner,  but  a  trustee  and 
executor  may  be,  if  some  species  of  title  is  vested  in  him.^^ 

7.     Leasehold. 

Section  3184b  provides  that  every  building  erected,  or  other 
improvement  made,  or  machinery  or  material  furnished,  men- 
tioned in  section  three  thousand  one  hundred  and  eighty-four, 
on  leased  lots  or  lands,  shall  be  held  for  debt  contracted  for 
or  on  account  of  same,  and  also  the  leasehold  term  for  such 

33  Dakin   v.   Lecklider,   10   Ohio  Co.,  5  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  582,  12  Ohio 

Cir.   Dec.  308,  19   Ohio  C.  C.   254.  C.   C.   639. 

See  §§  26,  28.  35  See  §§  26-106. 

34Burnap     v.    Sylvania   Butter 


107  OWNER — LEASEHOLD OHIO.  [§  44 

lot  and  land  on  which  the  same  is  erected  or  made ;  and  in 
case  the  lessee  shall  have  forfeited  his  lease,  the  purchaser  of 
the  building  and  leasehold  term,  or  so  much  thereof  as  remains 
unexpended  (unexpired),  shall  be  held  to  be  the  assignee  of 
such  leasehold  term,  and  as  such  shall  be  entitled  to  pay  to  the 
lessor  all  arrears  of  rent,  or  other  money,  interests,  and  costs 
due  under  said  lease,  unless  the  lessor  shall  have  regained 
possession  of  the  leasehold  land,  or  obtained  judgment  for  the 
possession  thereof,  on  account  of  the  non-compliance  by  the 
lessee  with  the  terms  of  the  lease,  in  which  case  the  purchaser 
of  the  improvements,  under  this  act,  shall  have  the  right  only 
to  remove  the  improvements  within  sixty  days  after  he  shall 
purchase  the  same,  and  the  owner  of  the  ground  shall  receive 
the  rent  due  him,  payable  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale,  ac- 
cording to  the  terms  of  the  lease,  down  to  the  time  of  removing 
the  building.2*^ 

The  above  section  is  for  the  purpose  of  letting  the  mechanic 
realize  upon  his  claim,  when  the  improvement  is  upon  leased 
property,  and  in  such  case,  even  though  the  contract  between 
the  lessor  and  lessee  might  be  to  the  contrary,  the  purchaser 
of  the  building  would  also  have  the  right  to  use  the  premises 
during  the  remainder  of  the  leasehold  term.  If  the  conditions 
of  the  original  lease  have  been  violated,  so  that  the  term  has 
expired,  then  the  lien  claimant  may  sell  the  improvement  and 
the  purchaser  would  have  a  right  to  remove  it  within  60  days 
from  the  time  of  the  purchase,  the  owner  being  entitled  to  re- 
ceive rent  for  that  period  of  time,  according  to  the  terms  of 
the  lease. 

This  is  the  only  instance  under  the  Ohio  law  whereby  the  build- 
ing or  improvement  may  be  removed  to  satisfy  the  lien.  If 
the  contract  between  the  lessor  and  lessee  provides  that  the 
rents  due  and  to  become  due  should  be  a  first  lien  on  the  prem- 
ises, then  the  mechanic  would  have  knowledge  of  such  pro- 
vision, and  would  take  subject  thereto,  and  the  claim  for  rents 

3G  Act     April     15,     1889,     Ohio       Laws,  86,  373,  374.     See  §  141. 


§44]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  LIEN.  108 

would  be  a  prior  lien  to  that  of  the  mechanic.^'^  This  claim  of 
the  mechanic  is  subject  likewise  to  all  other  claims  or  liens, 
which  were  valid  and  existing  upon  the  property  at  the  time 
the  lien  attached.^^ 

8.     Estate  and  extent  of  interest  liable. 

Unless  the  statute  specifically  so  provides,  the  law  in  Ohio 
is,  that  the  lien  attaches  to  the  improvement  as  a  part  and  par- 
cel of  the  land  upon  which  it  is  situated.  Section  3184  pro- 
vides the  manner  in  Avhich  such  right  may  be  enforced,  where 
an  improvement  is  put  upon  real  estate  by  a  lessee,  but  in  no 
other  way  can  the  improvement  itself  be  made  subject  to  the 
claim  of  the  mechanic,  separate  and  apart  from  the  lot  of  land 
upon  which  it  is  located.  Whatever  interest  the  owner  held 
in  the  real  estate,  that  interest  may  be  subjected  to  the  lien, 
and  no  more,  unless  the  owner  has,  by  some  act  of  his,  put 
himself  in  a  position  to  be  estopped  from  claiming  the  con- 
trary."^ It  cannot  operate  beyond  the  limits  of  the  county  in 
which  the  lien  is  filed. -^"^  An  equitable  interest  is  subject  to 
lien.^^  The  statute  itself  makes  the  lien  extend  to  any  ap- 
purtenance or  fixture,  in  the  determination  of  what  is  included 
in  these  terms,  the  general  rule  of  law  determining  the  same, 
would  apply  in  determining  whether  they  were  included  in 
the  mechanics'  liens.  As  to  the  extent  of  territory,  that  is  cov- 
ered by  the  lien,  it  is  said  in  Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2  Ohio  St. 
114,  "That  by  the  words,  'lot  of  land  upon  which  the  same 
shall  stand'  in  the  same  section,  is  not  meant  merely  the  ground 
covered  by  the  building;  nor  do  they,  necessarily  confine  the 

37  Young    V.    West    Side     Hotel  so  Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2  Ohio 
Co.,   6   Ohio   Cir.  Dec.    63,   9   Ohio      St.  114.     See  §§  132-143. 

C.  C.  127.  -io  Marlatt   v.    Hascall,    13    Ohio 

38  Tenant   has    no    right   to    re-       Dec.   364. 

move  building.     Dutro  v.  Wilson,  4i  Smith    v.    Woodruff,    12    Ohio 

4  Ohio   St.   101.     Attaches  to  gas  Dec.    (Re.)    140,   1    Handy    (Ohio) 

well.      Acklin    v.    Waltermier,    10  276;   Dakin  v.  Lecklider,  10  Ohio 

Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  629,  19  Ohio  C.  C.  Cir.  Dec.  308,  19  Ohio  C.  C.  254. 
372.     See  §141. 


109  ESTATE    LIABLE OHIO.  [§  44 

lien  to  the  particular  lot,  as  known  on  the  town  plat  on  which 
the  building-  stands.  On  the  contrary,  where,  as  in  the  present 
instance,  two  adjacent  town  lots  are  used,  without  any  actual 
division  between  them,  as  one  mill  lot,  a  part  of  the  buildings 
and  machinery  being  upon  one  and  a  part  upon  the  other,  the 
lien  extends  to  both  lots,  though  the  precise  spot  where  the 
work  was  done,  may  be  within  the  limits  of  one  of  them.  And 
the  case  is  the  same  whenever  two  or  more  adjacent  lots  are 
thrown  into  one  lot,  the  ideal  lines  of  division  being  disregarded 
and  used  for  a  common  purpose,  whatever  that  purpose  may 
be."  What  would  be  included  in  the  case  of  a  dwelling  or 
barn,  built  upon  a  farm,  the  court  expressly  refuses  to  decide. 
The  lien  only  attaches  to  those  items  furnished  under  the  con- 
tract which  are  suitable  to  the  building. ■^^ 

9.     Lien  for  labor  on  and  materials  for  roads,  streets,  ditches, 

sewers,  etc. 

Under  section  3186  a  person  who  performs  labor  or  furnishes 
material  for  constructing,  altering,  or  repairing  any  street,  turnpike, 
road,  sidewalk,  way,  drain,  ditch,  or  sewer,  by  virtue  of  a  private 
contract  between  him  and  the  owner  of  lands  abutting  thereon, 
or  his  authorized  agent,  shall  have  a  lien  for  the  payment  of 
the  same  against  the  lands  of  such  owner.-*^ 

10.     Abutting  land  owner. 

In  order  to  have  a  lien  under  this  section,  the  work  must 
be  under  contract  with  the  abutting  land  owner  or  his  agent. 
If  the  owner's  land  does  not  abut  the  improvement,  no  lien  can 
be  had.  Lands  are  said  to  abut  upon  a  street,  road  or  other 
premises  where  no  other  street  or  land  intervenes."*^  An  es- 
tate opposite  a  park,  separated  from  it  by  a  county  road   is  not 

42  Kunkle  v.  Reeser,  5  Ohio  Dec.  43  74  Ohio  Laws  168,  §  3. 

422,  5  Ohio  N.  P.  401.  44  Am.  and  Eng.  Ency.  of  Law, 

(2d  ed.),  vol.  1,  p.  224. 


§44]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO   LIEN.  110 

an  abutting  estate.^^  Where  a  small  stream  intervened  be- 
tween a  lane  and  a  lot  of  land,  it  was  held  that  the  premises 
adjoined,  but  did  not  abut,  by  one  judge,  and  by  another  that 
they  were  abutting.^^  A  lot  cannot  be  said  to  abut  on  a  public 
road  where  a  railroad,  the  bed  of  which  is  owned  by  the  com- 
pany, runs  between  the  lot  and  the  land.^"  A  sidewalk  and  lot 
with  a  street  between  are  not  abutting. ■^s 

11.     Lien  upon  mines  for  labor. 

Section  3184a  provides  that  any  person  who  performs  labor 
in  mining  coal,  or  removing  the  same  from  the  mines,  or  other 
manual  labor  connected  therewith,  for  any  coal  or  mining  com- 
pany owning,  operating,  or  leasing  coal  mines  within  this  state, 
by  virtue  of  a  contract  with  the  owner,  owners,  or  his  or  their 
authorized  agent,  shall  have  a  lien  to  secure  the  payment  for 
the  same  upon  the  mine  or  mines  of  such  company  and  upon 
all  the  rights  of  the  company  or  corporation  owning  or  leasing 
such  mines,  and  upon  all  the  personal  property  of  any  such 
company  or  corporation  used  in  conducting  their  business  of 
mining  coal,  whether  the  same  be  located  at  or  near  the  mines 
or  elsewhere. ^^ 

The  above  section  seems  to  extend  the  idea  of  mechanics' 
liens  in  two  directions,  namely :  to  that  for  mere  manual  labor, 
and  giving  the  lien  upon  personal  property.  Whether  the 
words  "other  manual  labor"  would  restrict  the  application  of 
this  statute  to  manual  labor  alone,  may  be  questionable. 

Probably  it  would  be  extended  under  the  first  clause  to  in- 
clude persons  who  perform  labor  in  mining  coal,  other  than 
merely  in  a  manual  way.     It  might  include  the  work  of  their 

45  Holt  V.  City  Council,  127  ^s  Wakefield  Urban  Sanitary 
Mass.  408.                                                   Authority  v.   Mander,   L.   R.   5   C. 

46  Wakefield     Local    Board     of      P.  Div.  248. 

Health  v.  Lee,   L.  R.  1,  Ex.   Div.  49  Act   Mar.    27,    1889,    86    Ohio 

336.  Laws  143. 

4"  Philadelphia  v.  Eastwick,  35 
Pa.  St.  75. 


Ill  LIEN INDIANA    STATUTE.  [§45 

teams  and  matters  of  that  character.  The  lien  upon  personal 
property  would  probably  be  valid  only  so  long  as  the  property 
was  in  the  possession  of  the  company. 

It  is  to  be  doubted  whether  it  is  the  intention  of  this  statute 
to  put  an  incumbrance  on  the  personal  property  that  would 
prevent  a  legal  sale  of  it,  by  passing  possession,  even  if  the  lien 
should  be  on  file,  where  the  purchaser  is  innocent  of  the  labor- 
er's claim. 

§  45.  Indiana  statute — reenactment.  The  mechanic's  lien 
law  of  Indiana  previously  in  force  for  more  than  twenty  years, 
was  declared  unconstitutional  so  far  as  it  provided  that  "con- 
tractors and  subcontractors"  might  acquire  liens,  because  the 
title  of  the  original  act^  only  applied  to  "mechanics,  laborers 
and  material  men,"  and  did  not  embrace  contractors.^**  But 
the  legislature,  which  was  in  session  at  the  time,  immediately 
re-enacted  the  statute  in  the  same  words  with  an  amended 
title,  and  declaring  an  emergency  which  made  it  take  effect  at 
once,  though  saving  all  rights  under  pending  litigation. ^'^ 

§  45a.  Laborers',  contractors'  and  sub-contractors'  lien — In- 
diana statute. — Section  8295^°  provides  that  contractors,  sub- 
contractors, mechanics,  journeymen,  laborers  and  all  persons 
performing  labor  or  furnishing  materials  or  machinery  for  the 
erection,  altering,  repairing  or  removing  any  house,  mill,  manu- 
factory, or  other  building,  bridge,  reservoir,  system  of  water 
works  or  other  structure,  or  for  constructing,  altering  or  re- 
pairing or  removing  of  any  sidewalks,  walk,  stile,  well,  drain, 
sewer  or  cistern,  may  have  a  lien  separately  or  jointly  upon  the 
house,  mill,  manufactory  or  other  building,  bridge,  reservoir, 
system  of  waterworks  or  other  structure,  sidewalk,  walk,  stile, 
well,  drain,  sewer  or  cistern  which  they  may  have  erected,  altered. 

1  Acts  Ind.  1883,  p.  140.  R.    Co.    v.    Defrees    (Ind.),    87    N. 

la  Indianapolis     N.     T.     Co.     v.  E.   March    10,    1909. 
Brennan   (Ind.),  87     N.     E.     215;  ^  Burns'  1908,  §§8295-8307,  re- 
Fleming  V.  Greener   (Ind.),  87  N.  enacted  by  Acts  1909,  p.  295. 
E.  March  9,  1909;  Cleveland,  etc.,  i^  Burns'     1908,     §8295,     re-en- 


§45]  CONDITIONS   GIVING   RIGHT   TO  LIEN.  112 

repaired  or  removed,  or  for  which  they  may  have  furnished  ma- 
terial or  machinery  of  any  description,  and  on  the  interest  of 
the  owner  of  the  lot  or  parcel  of  land  on  which  it  stands  or 
with  which  it  is  connected  to  the  extent  of  the  value  of  any 
labor  done,  material  furnished  or  either ;  and  all  claims  for 
wages  for  mechanics  and  laborers  employed  in  or  about  any 
shop,  mill,  ware-room,  store-room,  manufactory  or  structure, 
bridge,  reservoir,  system  of  waterworks  or  other  structure, 
sidewalk,  walk,  stile,  well,  drain,  sewer  or  cistern,  shall  be  a 
first  lien  upon  all  the  machinery,  tools,  stock  of  material,  work 
finished  or  unfinished  located  in  or  about  such  shop,  mill,  ware- 
room,  store-room,  manufactory  or  other  buildings;  bridge, 
reservoir,  system  of  waterworks  or  other  structure,  sidewalk, 
walk,  stile,  well,  drain,  sewer  or  cistern  or  used  in  the  business 
thereof;  and  should  the  person,  firm  or  corporation  be  in  fail- 
ing circumstances  the  above  mentioned  claims  shall  be  pre- 
ferred debts,  whether  claim  or  notice  of  lien  has  been  filed  or 
not. 

Section  8296^'^  relates  to  the  extent  of  lien  and  provides 
that  the  entire  land  upon  which  any  such  building,  erection  or 
other  improvement  is  situated,  including  that  portion  not  cov- 
ered therewith,  shall  be  subject  to  lien  to  the  extent  of  all  the 
right,  title  and  interest  owned  therein  by  the  owner  thereof, 
for  whose  immediate  use  or  benefit  such  labor  was  done  or 
material  furnished;  and  where  the  owner  has  only  a  leasehold 
interest,  or  the  land  is  incumbered  by  mortgage,  the  lien,  so  far 
as  concerns  the  buildings  erected  by  said  lien-holder,  is  not 
impaired  by  forfeiture  of  the  lease  for  rent  or  foreclosure  of 
mortgage ;  but  the  same  may  be  sold  to  satisfy  the  lien  and  (be) 
removed  within  ninety  (days)  after  the  sale  by  the  purhaser. 

1.     Generally. 
The  statute  of  Indiana,  giving  a  lien  on  real  estate  for  me- 
chanics, etc.,  is  one  of  that  character,  that  without  there  being 

acted    by    Acts    1909,    p.    295,    §  1.  i''  Burns'     1908,     §  8296,     re-en- 

acted by  Acts  1909,  p.  296,  §  2. 


113 


LIEN INDIANA  STATUTE. 


[§45a 


a  direct  contract  between  the  person  doing  the  work,  or  fur- 
nishing the  material,  and  the  owner,  it  may  give  a  lien  to  the 
person  doing  the  work.  This  statute  has  been  vigorously  at- 
tacked as  being  unconstitutional,  because  it  deprives  persons 
of  their  property  without  due  process  of  law,  and  also  because 
it  impairs  the  obligation  of  contracts  and  grants  privileges  to 
one  class  of  citizens  not  granted  to  others.  But  the  Supreme 
Court  has  decided  against  these  claims  and  declared  the  stat- 
ute constitutional. 1®  The  court  has  also  decided  that  the  pro- 
vision of  the  law  allowing  an  attorney's  fee  to  the  plaintiff,  is 
constitutional.^  The  lien  is  purely  a  creature  of  statute,^'!  and 
although  it  cannot  be  enforced  without  a  contract  between  the 
owner  and  some  one,  yet  it  does  not  exist  by  virtue  of  the  con- 
tract.^ And  while  the  lien  is  created  by  statute,  and  must  be 
strictly  followed  in'  securing  the  lien,  the  law  is  not  construed 
with  the  strictness  usual  to  statutes  derogatory  of  the 
common  law%  but  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  substan- 
tial justice.^  The  right  to  the  lien  may  be  waived,^  but  the 
taking  of  a  note  is  not  such  waiver,^  but  may  be  prima  facie 
evidence  of  payment  and  a  waiver  if  the  note  is  bankable.'^     A 


le  Smith  V.  Newbau,  144  Ind.  95, 
42  N.  E.  40,  1094,  33  L.  R.  A.  685; 
Barrett  v.  Millikan,  156  Ind.  510, 
60  N.  E.  310,  83  Am.  St.  220.  The 
Ohio  Supreme  Court  decided  the 
same  kind  of  a  statute  unconsti- 
tutional. 

The  case  of  Indianapolis  N.  T. 
Co.  V.  Brennan  (Ind.),  87  N.  E. 
215,  holding  that  the  Indiana 
statute  of  1883,  as  afterward 
amended,  was  unconstitutional  in 
part,  was  based  entirely  on  a  de- 
fect in  the  title  of  the  act,  which 
defect  was  cured  by  acts  1909, 
page  295,  passed  a  few  days  after 
that  decision  was   announced. 

2  Duckwall  V.  Jones,  156  Ind. 
682,  58  N.  E.  1055,  60  N.  B.  797. 


2a  Potter  M.  Co.  v.  A.  B.  Meyer 
&  Co.   (Ind.),  86  N.  E.  837. 

3  Beach  v.  Huntsman,  Ind.  App., 
85  N.  E.  523;  Davis,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Nice,  15  Ind.  App.  117,  43  N.  E. 
889. 

4  Williamson  v.  Shank,  41  Ind. 
App.  513,  83  N.  E.  641;  Clark  v. 
Huey,  12  Ind.  App.  224,  40  N.  E. 
152.     See   §§  2,   8. 

5  Swift  Co.  V.  Doll,  39  Ind.  App. 
653,  80  N.  E.  678.     See  §  173. 

6  Goble  V.  Gale,  7  Blackf.  218, 
41  Am.  Dec.  219n;  Millikin  v.  Arm- 
strong, 17  Ind.  456;  Rhodes  v. 
Webb-Jameson  Co.,  19  Ind.  App. 
195,  49  N.  E.  283. 

7  Hill  V.  Sloan,  59  Ind.  181; 
Schneider  v.  Kolthoff,  59  Ind.  568. 


§45a]  CONDITIONS   GIVING   RIGHT   TO   LIEN.  114 

stipulation  in  a  contract  of  sale  that  the  title  shall  remain  in 
the  seller  until  the  price  is  paid  does  not  waive  the  right  to  a 
lien.^  When  a  mechanic's  lien  becomes  vested,  it  cannot  be 
impaired  by  legislative  action.^ 

2.     IV ho  may  acquire. 

The  words  "all  persons"  following  the  enumerated  class  of 
contractors,  subcontractors,  mechanics,  journeymen  and  labor- 
ers, would  seem  to  be  broad  enough  to  include  every  individual 
or  corporation  that  would  bring  itself  within  the  statute  by  per- 
forming the  labor  designated.  But  it  only  includes  persons 
who  perform  the  kind  of  labor  or  furnish  the  kind  of  materials 
included  within  the  statute. 

Thus,  if  a  person  sold  material  to  the  owner,  and  had  noth- 
ing to  do  with  placing  the  property  in  the  building,  he  would  be 
a  materialman  but  the  person  from  whom  he  purchased  the 
property  would  not  be  included  in  the  statute. ^^  If  a  person 
furnished  the  proper  material  to  be  used  and  delivered  it  on 
the  premises,  he  would  be  entitled  to  a  lien,  although  it  were 
not  used,  if  retained  for  making  current  repairs,  as  occasion 
should  demand.ii  A  person  performing  labor  for  a  contractor 
is  within  the  statute,  and  may  claim  a  lien,^^  and  one  whc 
takes  a  sub-contract  under  a  sub-contractor  is  included 
whether  he  does  the  work  by  day  or  otherwise. ^^  Laborers 
who  hauled  away  the  dirt  that  remained  after  filling  up 
trenches,  for  a  heating  plant,  as  well  as  those  who  dug  the 
trenches  in  the  streets,  are  included, ^^  as  well  as  a  teamster.^^ 
A  general  manager  is  not  within  the  statute,^ ^  nor  can  a  surety 

s  Elwood    State   Bank   v.    Mock,  12  ]Merritt    v.    Pearson,    58    Ind. 

40  Ind.  App.  685,  82  N.  E.  1003.  385. 

9  Goodbub  V.  Hornung,  127  Ind.  is  Stephens  v.  Duffey,  41  Ind. 
181,  26  N.  E.  770.  App.  385,  83  N.  E.  268. 

10  Caulfield  V.  Polk,  17  Ind.  App.  i4  Wells  v.  Christian,  165  Ind. 
429,  46  N.  E.  932.     See  §  9.  662,  76  N.  E.  518- 

11  Totten,  etc,  Foundry  Co.  v.  i5  McElwaine  v.  Hosey,  135 
Muncie  Nail  Co.,  148  Ind.  372,  47  Ind.  481,  35  N.  E.  272. 

N.  E.  703.  1^  Rayner     v.  Kokomo    Ladder, 


115  CHARACTER  OF  LABOR INDIANA.  [§  45a 

on  a  bond  enforce  the  lien  for  materials  furnished  by  his  prin- 
cipal.^'^ A  claim  secured  by  a  mechanic's  lien  may  be  assigned 
by  parol,  and  such  assignment  transfers  the  lien.^'^*  But  the 
mere  assignment  of  an  account  or  debt  on  which  the  assignor 
might  have  obtained  a  mechanic's  lien,  such  as  "time  checks" 
evidencing  wages  earned,  gives  the  assignee  no  right  to  ac- 
quire or  perfect  a  lien.^"^ 

3.     Character  of  labor  or  material. 

The  statute  provides  that  the  lien  shall  cover  material  or 
machinery  of  any  description.  So  it  would  seem  that  the  lan- 
guage is  broad  enough  to  include  all  kinds  of  material  or  work. 
A  question  arises,  whether  or  not  the  materials  must  be 
not  only  furnished,  but  used,  before  they  can  be  included  in 
the  lien.  Decisions  of  this  state  seem  to  be  that  they  must  be 
actually  used  in  the  construction.^^  It  is  not  necessary  that 
they  be  furnished  on  the  credit  of  the  building,  if  they  are 
actually  used.^^  The  destruction  of  the  building,  after  the  ma- 
terials are  used,  will  not  destroy  the  right.^o  The  statute  in- 
cludes the  labor  performed  by  a  trench  machine  in  digging  a 
ditch   for  a  waterworks   system,   for  a   private  owner,   if  the 

etc.,   Co.,   153    Ind.    315,    54    N.   E.  Lawton  v.  Case,  73  Ind.  60;  Jones 

1061.  V.  Hall,  9  Ind.  App.  458,  35  N.  E.* 

17  McHenry  v.  Knickerbacker,  923,  37  N.  E.  25;  Leeper  v.  Myers, 
128  Ind.  77,  27  N.  E.  430.  10  Ind.  App.  314,  37  N.  E.  1070; 

I'i'a  Trueblood  v.   Shellhouse,   19  Parrell  v.  Lafayette  Lumber,  etc., 

Ind.   App.   91,    49   N.    E.    47.      See  Co.,  12  Ind.  App.  326,  40  N.  E.  25; 

§  165.        (See  Shapiro  v.   Schultz,  Barnett  v.   Stevens,  16   Ind.  App- 

32   Ind.  App.   219.)  420,   43  N.  E.   661,   45  N.  E.   485; 

17b Fleming   v.    Greener    (Ind.),  Miller    v.    Fosdick,    26    Ind.    App. 

87  N.  E.  March   9,  1909,  overrul-  293,   59  N.  E.  488;    Potter  M.  Co. 

ing  Midland  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  122  v.   A.  B.  Meyer  &  Co.    (Ind.),   86 

Ind.  84;  McElwaine  v.  Hosey,  135  N.  E.  837.     See  §§17-19. 

Ind.  481;    Pere  Marquette  R.  Co.  19  Clark  v.  Huey,   12  Ind.  App. 

V.  Baertz,  36  Ind.  App.  408,  74  N.  224,  40  N.  E.  152. 

E.    51.     See  Fleming  v.   Greener,  20  Smith   v.    Newbaur,   144    Ind. 

41  Ind.  App.  77,  83  N.  E.  354.  95,  42  N.  E.  40,  1094;    Bratton  v. 

18  Crawford  v.  Crockett,  55  Ind.  Ralph,  14  Ind.  App.  153,  42  N.  E. 
220;    Hill   v.    Sloan,   59    Ind.    181;  644.     See    §186. 


§45a]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO  LIEN.  116 

lien  is  asserted  on  behalf  of  the  person  who  actually  did  the 
work  by  means  of  such  machine ;  but  not  a  claim  for  rent,  re- 
pairs, etc.,  on  behalf  of  an  owner  who  merely  leased  his  ma- 
chine at  a  fixed  rental  for  use  by  the  persons  doing  the  work.^i 
The  statute  further  provides  that  the  labor  must  be  performed 
or  the  materials  furnished  for  the  erection,  altering,  repairing, 
or  removing  any  house,  etc.,  or  for  the  construction,  altering, 
repairing  or  removing  of  any  sidewalk,  etc.  These  terms  seem 
to  be  broad  enough  to  include  almost  every  kind  of  labor  that 
could  be  performed  in  and  upon  the  designated  improvements. 
But  in  order  that  a  mechanic's  lien  may  be  acquired  for  mater- 
ials furnished  they  must  have  entered  into  and  became  a  part 
of  the  property  as  improved.^i'^  A  lien  cannot  be  acquired 
for  fuel  burned  in  operating  a  machine  used  in  performing 
work.21^ 

4.     Property  subject  to. 

The  terms  of  the  statute  are  apparently  broad  enough  to 
include  every  kind  of  structure,  but  by  reason  of  public  policy, 
public  buildings  are  not  subject  to  a  lien;  thus,  a  courthouse, 
or  a  county  jail,^^  or  school  house,^^  or  public  bridges,^*  or 
public  waterworks,  are  not  to  be  subject  to  a  lien.^s  But  those 
of  a  semi-public  character,  like  a  church  belonging  to  a  re- 

21  Potter  Mfg.  Co.  v.  A.  B.  v.  Delaware  Co.,  100  Ind.  59.  See 
Meyer  &  Co.,  —  Ind.  — ,  86  N.  E.      §  10. 

837.  23  Fatout  v.  Board,  102  Ind.  223, 

2  la  Potter    Mfg.     Co.    v.    A.    B.  i  n.  E.   389;    Jeffries  v.  Myers,  9 

Meyer  &  Co.   (Ind.),  86  N.  E.  837,  ind.  App.  563,  37  N.  E.  301;  TowH- 

839.  send    v.    Cleveland     Fireproofing 

2ihMossburg  V.  United  Oil  &  G.  Co.,    18    Ind.   App.    568,    47    N.    E. 

Co.   (Ind.  App.),  87  N.  E.  April  2,  707. 

1909;    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.   Co.    v.  2  4  pike    County    v.    Norrington, 

Shera,  36  Ind.  App.  315,  73  N.  E.  82  Ind.  190. 

293.  25  Kentucky    Lead,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

22  Parke  County  v.  O'Conner,  86  New  Albany  Water  Works,  62 
Ind.  531,  44  Am.  Rep.  338;  Secrist  Ind.  63. 


117  PROPERTY   SUBJECT INDIANA.  [§  45a 

ligious  society,  is  not  within  the  exemption.^^  Oil  wells,^'^ 
and  gas  wells,  are  subject  to  the  lien.^s  Fixtures  in  a  house, 
such  as  chandeliers,^^  and  appurtenances  to  the  build- 
ing or  structure,  are  included.^*^  But  the  lien  does  not  at- 
tach to  specific  articles  in  a  building  or  structure  exclusive 
of  the  building  or  structure  itself.^^  For  tin  gutters  taken 
from  a  farm  house,  in  repairing  its  roof,  and  placed  on  the 
barn,  a  lien  on  both  buildings  may  be  secured  for  the  work.^^ 
Materials  to  construct  a  heating  plant  will  be  included.^^  The 
fact  that  the  building  is  not  completed,  does  not  necessarily 
prevent  the  material  man  from  acquiring  a  lien.^^  Labor  per- 
formed on  an  oil  well,^'^  or  the  construction  of  a  large  tank  up- 
on the  premises,  so  as  to  become  a  fixture,  will  furnish  the 
basis  for  a  lien.^^  A  building  equipped  with  machinery  for  the 
protection,  and  conveyance  of  steam  for  heating  purposes, 
under  a  municipal  franchise,  and  the  pipes  radiating  there- 
from, constitute  a  "manufactory"  within  the  statute.^'''  Con- 
tractors for  work  on  public  buildings  are  required  to  give 
bond  and  the  subcontractor  can  enforce  his  demand  against 
the  bond.^^  Even  if  the  commissioners  failed  to  require  a  bond, 
the  county  will  not  be  responsible.^^ 

28  Gortemiller      v.      Rosengarn,  34  Scott     v.     Goldinghorst,    123 

103  Ind.  414,  2  N.  E.  829.  Ind.  268,  24  N.  E.  333. 

27  Haskell  v.  Gallagher,  20  35  Haskell  v.  Gallagher,  20  Ind. 
Ind.  App.  224,  50  N.  E.  485,  67  App.  224,  50  N.  E.  485,  67  Am. 
Am.  St.  250.  St.  250. 

28  Montpelier  Light,  etc.,  Co.  v.  36  Parker  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Red- 
Stephenson,  22  Ind.  App.  175,  53  dick,  18  Ind.  App.  616,  47  N.  E. 
N.  E.  444.  848. 

29  McFarlane  v.  Foley,  27  Ind.  37  Wells  v.  Christian,  165  Ind. 
App.  484,  60  N.  E.  357,  87  Am.  St.  662,  76  N.  E.  518. 

264.  38  Townsend  v.  Cleveland  Fire- 
so  Crawford    v.    Anderson,     129  proofing    Co.,    18    Ind.    App.    568, 
Ind.  117,  28  N.  E.  314.     See  §15.  47    N.    E.    707;    Parke    County   v. 

31  Baylies  v.   Sinex,  21  Ind.  45.  O'Connor,    86    Ind.    531,    44    Am. 

32  Stephens  v.  Duffey,  41  Ind-  Rep.  338;  Secrist  v.  Delaware  Co., 
App.  385,  83  N.  E.  268.     See  §14.  100  Ind.  59. 

33  Siegmund  v.  Kellogg,  etc.,  Co..  39  pike  County  v.  Norrington, 
38  Ind.  App.  95,  77  N.  E.  1096.  82  Ind.  190. 


§  45a]  CONDITIONS   GIVING  RIGHT   TO   LIEN.  118 

5.     Contract. 

While  the  statute  nowhere  uses  the  words  that  the  material 
must  be  furnished,  or  the  work  done,  under  contract,  yet  the 
courts  recognize  the  fact  that  in  order  to  acquire  a  lien  for  the 
erection  of  buildings,  there  must  be  a  contract  with  the  owner 
of  the  land,  or  some  one  authorized  to  act  for  him.^*^  Without 
proof  that  there  was  a  valid  and  binding  contract,  there  can 
be  no  lien.'*^  This  is  true,  although  the  lien  exists,  by  virtue 
of  the  statute  creating  it.^^ 

6.     Contract  zvith  owner. 

The  contract  must  be  with  the  owner  of  the  land  upon 
which  the  structure  is  erected,  or  some  one  having  authority 
from  the  owner.  "Owner"  here,  signifies  the  person  who  has 
some  title  or  claim  in  the  real  estate.  The  fact  that  the  owner 
knows  that  persons  are  performing  labor  on  a  building  is 
not  necessarily  sufficient  to  imply  a  contract  on  his  part.^^  . 
Though  an  owner  wdio  offers  another  person  facilities  for 
making  improvements  on  his  land  may  be  estopped  as  against 
laborers  and  material  men,  to  deny  his  liability  for  their  cost.'*^'' 
A  married  woman  has  the  same  power  to  make  contracts  for 
improvement  of  her  real  estate,  as  if  she  were  single.-*^  A 
husband  has  no  authority  to  charge  his  wife's  real  estate, 
merely  by  virtue  of  the  marriage  relation, -^-^  although  agency 

40  Coburn  v.  Stephens,  137  Ind.  513,  S3  X.  E.  641.  See  §§  26,  27. 
683,  36  N.  E.  132,  45  Am.  St.  218.  43a  Lengelsen  v.  McGregor,  162 
See  §  25.  Ind.   258,  —  N.  E.  — ;   Cannon  v. 

41  Littler  v.  Friend,  167  Ind.  36,  Helfrick,  99  Ind.  164;  Thompson 
78  N.  E.  238;  Alvey  v.  Reed,  115  v.  Shepard,  85  Ind.  352;  Jones  v. 
Ind.  148,  17  N.  E.  265,  7  Am.  St.  Pothast,  72  Ind.  158. 

418.  44  Stephenson     v.    Ballard,     82 

42  Beach     v.     Huntsman,     Ind.      Ind.  87. 

App.,  85  N.  E.   523.  45  Johnson  v.  Tutewiler,  35  Ind. 

43  Neeley  v.  Searight,  113  Ind.  353;  Capp  v.  Stewart,  38  Ind.  479; 
316,  15  N.  E.  598;  Caylor  v.  Thorn,  Crickmore  v.  Breckenridge,  51 
125   Ind.   201,   25  N.  E.   217;    Wil-  ind.  294.     See  §37. 

liamson    v.    Shank.    41    Ind.    App. 


119  CONTRACT   WITH  OWNER INDIANA.  [§  45a 

of  the  husband  may  be  shown  as  in  other  cases.^^  Tenants  by 
entirety  may  subject  their  interest  in  the  land  to  the  lien.^'^ 
While  an  infant  may  have  sufficient  title,  yet  he  can  plead 
infancy  and  defeat  the  lien,^^  building-  material  not  being 
"necessary"  for  an  infant.  A  tenant  owning  the  building,  with 
the  right  of  removal  can  create  a  lien  thereon.-*^  A  purchaser 
of  real  estate  in  possession  under  contract  of  purchase  and 
title  bond,  can  not  defeat  the  vendor's  title  by  permitting  a  lien 
on  the  property. 5*^ 

7.     Estate  or  interest. 

Whatever  estate  or  interest  the  person  making  the  contract 
has  in  the  land  upon  which  the  structure  is  to  be  located,  that 
interest  is  subject  to  the  lien.^'^'^  If  the  contracting  owner  has 
only  a  leasehold  interest,  then  the  lien  will  attach  to  the  build- 
ing, and  the  lessor's  interest.^'^^  As  a  general  rule,  however,  a 
lien  attaches  to  the  building  and  the  land,  considered  as  one. 
If  the  building  is  destroyed,  this  does  not  defeat  the  right  of 
the  lienholder  to  have  applied  on  his  lien  the  interest  that  the 
contracting  owner  had  in  the  land,  be  that  great  or  small. ^^ 
In  order  that  one  who  does  not  own  the  fee  in  the  land,  may 
create  a  lien  on  the  building,  so  that  it  can  be  sold  and  re- 

46  Jones  V.  Pothast,  72  Ind.  158;  513,  S3  N.  E.  641,  and  dissenting 

Thompson  v.  Shepard,  85  Ind.  352.  opinion  therein.    And  see  Lengel- 

See  §§  30,  40.  sen    v.    McGregor,    162    Ind.    258, 

•47  Taggart  v.  Kern,  22  Ind.  App.  holding   that   the    owner   may   be 

271,  53  N.  E.  651.  estopped    to    deny    the    authority 

48  Price    V.    Jennings,    62    Ind.  of  his  vendee  to  improve  the  land 

111;   Alvey  v.  Reed,  115  Ind.  148,  and  to  bind  the  fee  for  the  cost 

17  N.  E.  265,  7  Am.  St.  418.     See  of   improvements. 

§  29.  50 a  Williamson     v.     Shank,     41 

■*9  McCarty    v.    Burnet,    84    Ind.  Ind.  App.  513,  83  N.  E.  641. 

23.  50b  Littler    v.    Friend,    167    Ind. 

50  Rusche    v.    Pittman,    34    Ind.  36,  78  N.  E.  238. 

App.  159,  72  N.  E.  473.     See  Wil-  siBratton    v.     Ralph,    14     Ind. 

liamson    v.    Shank,    41    Ind.    App.  App.  153,  42  N.  E.  644. 


§45a]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO   LIEN.  120 

moved,  such  person  must  have  come  rightfully  into  posses- 
sion.^2 

8.  Separate  and  joint  liens. 

This  means  that  the  mechanic  or  persons  furnishing  material, 
may  either  alone  or  jointly  with  others  have  a  lien  on  the  real 
estate.  It  does  not  mean  that  they  can  in  the  same  notice  of 
lien  or  proceedings  have  their  lien  attached  to  separate  build- 
ings, constructed  under  separate  contracts.  As  to  separate 
buildings,  there  must  be  a  separate  proceeding  for  each.^^  Of 
course  if  one  building  is  properly  appurtenant  to  another,  the 
lien  will  cover  both.^^  It  has  also  been  held,  that  parties  can 
join  in  taking  out  a  lien  only  when  the  contract  is  a  joint 
one.  If  the  claims  are  due  to  them,  severally,  each  must  take 
out  his  own  lien.^^ 

9.  Extent  of  land  included. 

The  extent  of  land  included  is  that  usually  considered  by  the 
owner  as  one  separate  parcel  of  land,  or  what  might  be  con- 
sidered the  lot,  or  sub-division  of  land  upon  which  the  building 
is  erected. ^^ 

10.     Bttilder's  hand. 

A  builder's  bond  to  secure  the  owner  against  mechanics' 
liens  makes  the  sureties  absolutely  liable  to  laborers  and  ma- 
terial men,  whether  they  ever  perfect  their  liens  by  filing  no- 

52  Williamson  v.  Shank,  41  Ind.  Ind.   117,  28  N.   E.  314;    Windfall 

App.  513,  83  N.  E.  641;   Littler  v.  N.  G.  Co.  v.  Roe  (Ind.  App.),  85  N. 

Friend,  167  Ind.  36,  78  N.  E.  238.  E.  722. 
See  §  11.  55  McGrew  v.  McCarty,  78  Ind. 

33  Hill   V.    Braden,   54    Ind.    72;  496;    Northwestern,  etc.,  Ass'n  v. 

Hill    V.    Ryan,    54    Ind.    118;    Mc-  McPherson,  23  Ind.  App.  250. 
Grew  V.  McCarty,  78  Ind.  496.  56  Crawfordsville    v.    Barr,     65 

54  Crawford    v.    Anderson,     129  Ind.  367.     See  §  134. 


121  EXTENT  OF  LAND — BUI LDER's  BOND.  [§  45a 

tices  or  not,   if  it  contains   an   unconditional   undertaking   to 
"promptly  pay  and  discharge"  claims  of  that  character.^'^^ 

§  46.  Claim  for  wages — Indiana  statute. — The  provision  rel- 
ative to  wages  seems  to  be  a  separate  and  independent  pro- 
vision of  the  statute,  and  no  doubt  relates  only  to  mechanics 
and  laborers,  as  those  terms  are  generally  used,  and  limits  the 
lien  to  such  as  are  employed  about  any  shop,  mill,  ware-room, 
store-room,  manufactory  or  structure,  and  it  makes  these 
claims  preferred  ones.  The  lien  does  not  extend  to  the  real 
estate,  but  is  limited  to  the  machinery,  tools,  stock  of  material, 
work  finished,  or  unfinished,  located  in  and  about  such  place 
where  the  work  was  performed,  and  this  lien  attaches  whether 
a  notice  be  filed  or  not,  if  the  debtor  is  in  failing  circum- 
stances.^'^ 

§  47.     Material  men  entitled  to  lien  by  direct  contract. — One 

who  furnishes  lumber  for  the  building,^  or  mantels,  tiles  and 

grates,-  or  door  sashes,  whether  he  makes  or  buys  them,  is  a 

material  man,^  but  a  person  who  furnishes  such  material  is 

not  an  "artisan,"  "builder"  or  "mechanic,""*  nor  a  "mason"  or 

"carpenter,"^  nor  a  "laborer"  or  "contractor,"^  nor  an  "under- 
sea Gwinn      v.      Wright      (Ind.  Rhode  Island. — Sweet  v.  James, 

App.),  86  N.  E.  453.  2  R.  I.  270. 

57  Sulzer-Vogt      Mach.     Co.     v.  See   Dec.    &    Am.    Dig.   tit.    Me- 

Rushville  Water  Co.,  160  Ind-  202,      chanics'  Liens,    §  82. 

65  N.  E.  583;  National  Supply  Co.  2  Bennett  v.  Davis,  113  Cal.  337, 

V.  Stranahan,  161  Ind.  602,  69  N.      45  Pac.  684,  54  Am.  St.  354. 

E.  447;  Goodbub  v.  Hornung,  127  3  Wilson  v.  Hind,  113  Cal.  357, 

Ind.  181,  26  N.  E.  770.  45  Pac.   605. 

1  Alabama. — Geiger    v.    Hussey,  ^  Duncan   v.   Bateman,   23   Ark. 

63  Ala.  338.  327,  79  Am.  Dec  109;  Boutner  v. 

Missouri — Miller    v.    Whitelaw,      Kent,  23  Ark.  389;   Huck  v.  Gay- 

28   Mo.   App.    639;      Gruner,   etc.,      lord,  50  Tex.  578. 

Lumber  Co.  v.  Nelson,  71  Mo.  App.  ^  Pitts  v.  Bomar,  33  Ga.  96. 

110.  0  Arnold    v.    Budlong,    11    R.    I. 

PennsylTania — Savoy  v.   Jones,      561. 

2  Rawle   (Pa.)   343. 


§  46]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO  LIEN.  122 

taker/'"  nor  a  "journeyman/'^  nor  a  "builder/'^  nor  a  "ma- 
chinist/" ^^  nor  a  "contractor"  or  "subcontractor/'  within  these 
terms  as  used  in  the  statute. ^^  The  material  man  must  bring 
himself  within  the  general  rules  relating  to  liens.  He  can 
have  no  lien  unless  there  was  a  contract  with  the  owner. ^^ 
Non-residence  will  not  defeat  his  right. ^^  Even  if  there  is  no 
direct  contract  with  the  owner,  the  owner  may  so  act  that 
a  contract  may  be  implied,  as  where  he  promises  to  pay  for 
materials  which  the  contractor  has  requested  the  material  man 
to  furnish.^ ^  And  the  material  man  may  by  his  acts  be 
estopped  from  asserting  the  lien.^^ 

§  48.  Contractors — Who  are. — The  term  contractor  and 
general  contractor,  as  used  in  mechanic's  lien  laws,  include  all 
persons  furnishing  material  for,  or  doing  labor  upon,  a  building 
or  construction  under  a  contract  made  by  such  person  directly 
with  the  owner  or  his  authorized  agent. ^  Where  the  state- 
ment shows  that  a  large  number  of  the  articles  and  materials 

"  Greenwood  v.  Tennessee  INIfg.  Vegas  Masonic  Bldg.  Assn.,  11  X. 

Co.,  32  Tenn.  (2  Swan)  130.  M.  251,  67  Pac.  743. 

8  Stevens  v-  Wells,  36  Tenn.  (4  i4  Getz  v.  Brubaker,  17  York 
Sneed)    387.  (Pa.)    81,    84,   121,   122;    Wilier  v. 

9  Darlington-:\Iiller  Lumber  Co.  Bergenthal,  50  Wis.  474,  7  N.  W. 
V.  Lobitz,  4  Okla.  668,  46  Pac.  352;  Lane,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jones,  79 
481.  Ala.    156;     Blake    v.    Pitcher,    46 

10  Allman  v.  Corban,  63  Tenn.  Md.  453.  The  fact  that  the  con- 
(4  Baxt.)   74.  tractor  agreed  with  the  owner  to 

11  Leitch  V.  Central  Dispensary.  give  security  against  liens,  will 
etc..   Hospital,    6   App.    D.   C.    247.  not    defeat   his    right.     Carter    v. 

12  Caulfield  v.  Polk,  17  Ind.  App.  Martin,  22  Ind.  App.  445,  53  N.  E- 
429,  46  N.  E.  932;  Ryan  Drug  Co.  1066. 

V.  Rowe,  66  Minn.  480,   69  N.  W.  i5  Green    Bay     Lumber    Co.     v. 

468;    Hatch  v.  Coleman,  29  Barb.  Adams,    107    Iowa   672,    78   N.   W. 

(N.  Y.)    201.  699;    Vordenbaumen    v.    Bartlett, 

13  In  re  Simonds  Furnace  Co.,  105  La.  752,  30  So.  219;  Cline  v. 
61  N.  Y.  Supp.   974,  30  Misc    (N.  Shell.  43  Ore.  372,  73  Pac.  12. 

Y.)      209;      (Citing     Campbell     v.  i  Chapman     v.     Faith,     IS     Pa. 

Coon,  149  N.  Y.  556,  44  N.  E.  300,  Super.    Ct.    578;      Merchants,   &c. 

38  L.   R.  A.  410) ;    Stout  v.   Saw-  Bank  v.  Dashiell,  25  Gratt.   (Va.) 

yer,  37  Mich.  313;    Genest  v.  Las  616;    Hoatz  v.  Patterson,  5  Watts 


123 


CONTRACTORS — WHO    ARE. 


[§48 


entering  into  the  construction  of  the  various  parts  of  a  build- 
ing were  furnished  by  a  person  through  his  skilled  workmen, 
such  person  is  a  contractor.^  One  of  the  essentials  distinguish- 
ing- a  contractor  from  those  entitled  to  liens  under  him.  is  that 
the  relation  of  debtor  and  creditor  must  exist  between  him  and 
the  owner.3  j^  is  not  necessary  that  the  contractor  should  ac- 
tually perform  the  labor  himself  or  furnish  the  material;  it 
is  sufficient  if  it  is  furnished  by  him  directly,  or  by  others  at 
his  order."*  A  contractor,  however,  is  not  included  in  a  law  that 
gives  the  right  to  "master  builders,"^  nor  to  "subcontractors,"^ 
nor  to  "mechanics"  or  "material  men,"'''  nor  to  "carpenters" 


&  S.  (Pa.)  537.  One  who  con- 
tracts to  furnish  an  engine  to  be 
placed  in  a  lighting  plant  con- 
structed by  a  private  individual 
on  his  own  land,  to  be  conveyed 
to  the  city  when  the  plant  is  com- 
pleted, is  a  contractor,  within  Me- 
chanics' Lien  Law  (Kurd's  Rev. 
St.  1899,  p.  1104,  1),  giving  con- 
tractors a  lien  for  machinery  and 
materials  used  in  erecting  build- 
ings on  land,  and  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  notice  of  the  lien  should 
be  given  when  suit  is  begun  within 
four  months  after  the  debt  is  due, 
as  provided  by  section  7.  City 
of  Salem  v.  Lane  &c.  Co.,  189  111. 
593,  60  N.  E.  37,  82  Am.  St.  481. 
Under  Rev.  St.  1889,  §  6705,  giving 
a  lien  to  every  person  who  per- 
forms any  work  or  furnishes  any 
material  for  any  building  under 
a  contract  with  the  owner,  his 
contractor,  or  a  subcontractor,  a 
contractor  is  not  solely  one  who 
furnishes  labor  alone,  or  labor 
and  material,  under  a  contract 
with  the  owner,  but  includes  one 
who  furnishes  material  only   un- 


der a  contract  with  the  owner. 
Western  Sash  &  Door  Co.  v.  Buck- 
ner,  80  Mo.  App.  95,  2  Mo.  App. 
Repr.  549.  In  Duff  v.  Hoffman,  63 
Pa.  St.  191,  a  contractor  is  defined 
to  be  a  person  employed  to  erect 
or  construct  a  building  or  any  main 
division  thereof,  and,  of  course, 
where  a  lien  is  allowed  for  work 
or  materials,  for  the  repair  or  al- 
teration of  the  same.  A  contract- 
or is  not  a  mere  workman  nor  a 
material  man.  Brown  v.  Cowan 
&  Steele,  110  Pa.  St.  59. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,   §  85. 

2  Sterner  v.  Haas,  108  Mich.  488, 
66  N.  W.  348. 

3  Lester  v.  Houston,  101  N.  Car. 
605,    8    S.   E.   366. 

4  Savannah  &c.  R.  Co.  v.  Cal- 
lahan, 49  Ga.  506;  Powell  v.  No- 
lan, 27  Wash.  318,  67  Pac.  712. 

5  Winder  v.  Caldwell,  55  U.  S. 
(14  How.)  434,  14  L.  ed.  487;  Act 
Cong.   1833,   §   1233. 

6  Bryan  v.  Whitford,  66   111.  33. 
"  Witman  v.  Walker,  9  Watts  & 

S.   (Pa.)  183. 


48] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO  LIEN. 


124 


and  "lumber  merchants."^  A  contractor  is  not  deprived  of  his 
right  to  a  lien  under  a  statute  denying  liens  where  the  relation 
of  landlord  and  tenant  exists,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  he  is 
designated  as  a  tenant  in  the  contract.^  If  a  contractor 
adopts  the  work  of  a  third  person  and  the  owner  assents  there- 
to, the  contract  will  be  sufficient  to  give  a  lien.^^  A  contractor 
may  be  a  material  man  so  far  as  the  lien  relates  to  the  materials 
he  furnished,  but  generally  he  takes  a  certain  part  or  portion  of 
the  entire  work.  He  may  contract  to  furnish  all  the  lumt>er, 
or  all  the  services  for  certain  things,  or  for  the  entire  improve- 
ment. In  each  of  these  cases  a  contractor  has  a  lien  for  the 
portion  covered  by  his  contract.^!  In  cases  where  the  con- 
tractor has  a  lien  right,  the  effect  of  the  subordinate  liens  is 
to  diminish  the  amount  coming  to  him  upon  the  performance 
of  the  contract. 1-     It  is  impliedly  agreed  under  a  contract  be- 


SAct  Cong.  1843;  Shaefer  v. 
Hull,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  320;  Ross  v. 
Hunter,  3  Brewst.    (Pa.)   169. 

9  Bentley  v.  Adams,  92  Wis.  386, 
66  N.  W.  505;  Laws  Wis.  1887, 
§  466. 

10  Cochran  v.  Yoho,  34  Wash. 
238,  75  Pac.   815. 

Promoter. —  A  promoter  of  a 
scheme  to  erect  a  butter  factory 
entered  into  a  contract  with  a 
number  of  persons,  severally,  that 
he  would  erect  a  factory  costing 
a  certain  amount,  the  subscrib- 
ers to  the  scheme  to  take  each  a 
certain  number  of  shares  at  $100 
a  share,  and  when  a  sufficient 
number  of  shares  were  subscribed 
to  cover  the  cost  of  the  factory, 
then  a  corporation  would  be 
formed  and  the  shares  conveyed 
to  it,  with  the  proviso,  however, 
that  each  subscriber  should  be 
held  liable  only  for  the  amount 
of  his   subscription.     A  sufficient 


number  of  shares  having  been 
subscribed,  the  factory  was  erect- 
ed, and  conveyed  to  the  corpora- 
tion formed,  but,  several  of  the 
subscribers  refusing  to  pay,  from 
whom  nothing  could  be  collected 
by  law,  the  sum  realized  from  the 
subscriptions  was  insufficient  to 
pay  for  the  factory.  The  con- 
tractors thereupon  attempted  to 
secure  a  mechanic's  lien  on  the 
factory,  and  brought  suit  to  en- 
force the  same.  The  contractors 
under  the  contract  were  not  en- 
titled to  a  mechanic's  lien.  Bur- 
nap  V.  Sylvania  Butter  Co.,  12 
Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  639,  1  Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 
582. 

11  Collini  V.  Nicholson,  51  Ga. 
560;  Powell  v.  Nolan,  27  Wash. 
318,  67  Pac.  712;  Avery  v.  Clark, 
87  Cal.  619,  25  Pac.  919,  22  Am. 
St.  272. 

12  Sweet  V.  James,  2  R.  I.  270. 


125  CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE  OF  DUTY.  [§  48 

tween  the  owner  and  the  contractor  that  he  may  employ  the 
necessary  workmen  or  furnish  the  necessary  materials,  and  the 
law  becomes  a  part  of  this  contract  giving  workmen  under 
him  a  lien  for  materials  furnished  or  services  rendered. ^^  In 
the  absence  of  conflicting  claims  between  the  person  who 
actually  performed  the  labor,  and  the  person,  who  under  the 
contract,^^  caused  it  to  be  performed,  the  latter  is  given  the 
lien.  The  fact  that  the  contractor  has  assigned  the  payments 
due  or  to  become  due,  will  not  defeat  his  right  to  a  lien.^^ 
Neither  will  the  failure  to  secure  a  building  permit,  where  the 
same  is  required,  defeat  his  right. ^"^  As  before  stated,  to  en- 
title a  person  to  a  lien  it  is  not  necessary  that  he  contract  to 
build  the  entire  structure. ^^  One  who  is  not  a  party  to  the  con- 
tract but  guarantees  that  the  contractor  will  comply  with  his 
contract,  is  not  a  contractor,  and  cannot  claim  to  be  subro- 
gated to  the  rights  of  the  contractor  and  secure  a  lien.^*  The 
fact  that  the  contractor  has  given  a  bond  conditioned  to  keep 
the  building  free  from  liens,  will  not  prevent  his  iien.  Such 
a  bond  is  intended  to  mean  that  it  be  kept  free  from  the  liens 
of  sub-contractors,  and  does  not  affect  the  rights  of  the  con- 
tractor and  owner.i^ 

§  49.  Contractor,  performance  of  contract. — Before  a  con- 
tractor is  entitled  to  recover  on  his  lien  he  must  show  a  per- 
formance of  the  conditions  of  his  contract.  A  substantial 
compliance,  however,  is  all  that  is  required.^      What  will  con- 

13  Daley  v.  Legate,  169  Mass.  Robertson,  120  Mo.  38,  25  S.  W. 
257,  47  N.  E.  1013.  349;    Schenck  v.  Uber,  81  Pa.  St. 

14  Bates   Mach.    Co.    v.   Trenton       31. 

&c.    R.    Co.,    70    N.    J.    L.    684,    58  is  Dye  v.   Forbes,   34   Minn.   13, 

Atl.   935.  24  N.  W.  309. 

15  Williams  v.  Weinbaum,  178  is  Atlantic  Coast  Brewing  Co. 
Mass.  238,  59  N.  E.  626.  v.    Clement,   59    N.    J.    L.    438,    36 

iP'Duhrkop   v.   White,   44   N.   Y.  Atl.  883. 

Supp,   694,   15   App.    Div.    (N.   Y.)  i  Hobart  v.  Reeves,  73  111.  527; 

613.  King  V.   Moore,  61  App.   Div.    (N. 

17  Church    V.    Smithea,    4    Colo.  Y.)   609,  70  N.  Y.  Supp.  6;  Holl  v. 

App.  175,  35  Pac.  267;   Walden  v.  Long,  34  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  1,  68  N.  Y. 


49] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO   LIEN. 


126 


stitute  a  substantial  performance,  is  a  matter  of  fact  for  the 
jury  to  decide  from  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case.2 
If  the  claimant  shows  that  he  offers  to  do  any  work  designated 
by  the  owner  that  ought  to  be  done,  and  the  owner  fails  to 


Supp.  522;  Rogers  v.  McGuire,  57 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  590,  10  N.  Y.  Supp. 
831;  McNeal  v.  Clement,  2  Th.  &  C. 
(N.  Y.)   363. 

Failure  to  furnish  dimensions- 
— Where  plaintiff  completed  his 
contract  to  furnish  materials  for 
defendant's  buildings,  except  cer- 
tain doors  and  drawers,  the  di- 
mensions of  which  were  not  fur- 
nished to  him,  he  being  at  all 
times  ready  to  supply  them  when 
he  could  receive  the  dimensions, 
his  right  to  a  lien  is  complete. 
Frohlich  v.  Carroll,  127  Mich.  561, 
86  N.  W.  1034,  8  Det.  Leg.  N.  458. 

Good  faith  an  element. — "The 
question  of  substantial  perform- 
ance depends  somewhat  on  the 
good  faith  of  the  contractor.  If 
he  had  intended,  and  tried  to  com- 
ply with  the  contract,  and  has 
succeeded  except  as  to  some 
slight  things  omitted  by  inadven- 
ture,  he  will  be  allowed  to  re- 
cover the  contract  price,  less  the 
amount  necessary  to  fully  com- 
pensate the  owner  for  the  dam- 
ages sustained  by  the  omission. 
But  when,  as  in  this  case,  there 
is  a  wilful  refusal  by  the  contract- 
or to  perform  his  contract,  and 
he  wholly  abandons  it,  and,  after 
due  notice,  refuses  to  have  any- 
thing more  to  do  with  it,  his 
right  to  recover  depends  upon 
performance  of  his  contract,  with- 
out any  omission  so  substantial 
in  its  character  as  to  call  for  an 


allowance  of  damages  if  he  had 
acted  in  good  faith."  Van  Clief 
V.  Van  Vechten,  130  N.  Y.  571,  29 
N.  E.  1017;  Sherry  v.  Madler,  123 
Wis.  621,  101  N.  W.  1095;  Roane 
V.  Murphy  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  96 
S.  W.  782;  Hahn  v.  Bonacum,  76 
Neb.  837,  107  N.  W.  1001,  judg- 
ment modified  on  rehearing  (Neb.) 
109  N.  W.  368. 

Easthampton  Lumber,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Worthington,  186  N.  Y.  407, 
79  N.  E.  323;  Judgment  in  108 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  355,  95  N.  Y. 
Supp.  1126  reversed.  See  §  50, 
Ohio  statutes. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,  §  93. 

2  Maine.— White  v.  Oliver,  36 
Me.  92;  Jewett  v.  Weston,  11 
Me.  346. 

Massachusetts. —  Olmstead  v. 
Beale,  19  Pick.  (Mass.)  528;  Hay- 
ward  V.  Leonard,  7  Pick.  (Mass.) 
181. 

New  York. — Nolan  v.  Whitney, 
88  N.  Y.  648;  Ansonia  Brass  & 
Copper  Co.  v.  Gerlach,  8  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  256,  28  N.  Y.  Supp.  546;  Nu- 
nan  v.  Doyle,  60  N.  Y.  Super.  377, 
18  N.  Y.  Supp.  192;  Phillip  v. 
Gallant,  62  N.  Y.  256.  In  the  case 
of  Kane  v.  Stone  Co.,  39  Ohio  St. 
1,  the  court  below  charged  the 
jury,  "Plaintiff  must  show  that 
Scott  (contractor)  substantially 
complied  with  the  terms  of  the 
contract,  and  unless  he  substan- 
tially completed  the  contract,  the 


127 


CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE  OF  DUTY. 


[§49 


designate  any,^  or  that  the  owner  has  accepted  the  building, 
knowing  the  defects  complained  of,  then  the  owner  will  be 
estopped  from  setting  up  the  defense  of  non-performance.*  While 
the  courts  have  from  the  apparent  injustice  of  a  contrary  holding, 
decided   that   a   substantial    compliance    will    be    sufficient   to 


plaintiff  cannot  recover.  But  this 
is  not  a  technical  rule.  It  does 
not  apply  to  immaterial  points, 
but  to  the  substantial  require- 
ments of  the  contract.  If  the 
work  was  substantially  complet- 
ed, then  the  plaintiff  is  entitled 
to  recover  as  much  as  the  mate- 
rials and  work  were  worth,  after 
deducting  all  damages  which 
Kane  (owner)  sustained  by  rea- 
son of  defects  in  the  materials  or 
work  and  for  which  Kane  was 
liable  to  Otis.  If  Scott  did  not 
complete  it,  but  abandoned  it  be- 
fore finishing  in  a  material  part, 
then  the  plaintiff  cannot  recover. 
If  he  did  all  the  work,  but  in  an 
improper  manner,  then  plaintiff 
can  recover  the  reasonable  value 
of  such  work  less  any  damage 
caused  by  the  improper  manner  of 
doing  it."  In  Gillespie  Tool  Co. 
V.  Wilson,  22  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  522, 
the  court  said:  "The  equitable 
doctrine  of  substantial  perform- 
ance is  intended  for  the  protec- 
tion and  relief  of  those  who  have 
faithfully  and  honestly  endea- 
vored to  perform  their  contract 
in  all  material  and  substantial 
particulars,  so  that  their  right 
to  compensation  may  not  be  for- 
feited by  reason  of  mere  techni- 
cal, inadvertent  or  unimportant 
omission  or  defect.  It  is  incum- 
bent on  him  who  invokes  its  pro- 
tection to  present  a  case  in  which 
there   has    been    no    wilful    omis- 


sion or  departure  from  the  terms 
of  his  contract.  If  he  fails  to  do 
so,  the  question  of  substantial 
performance  should  not  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  jury."  The  contract 
in  this  case  called  for  the  drill- 
ing of  a  gas  well  of  five  and  one- 
eighth  inches  in  diameter,  reamed 
out  to  eight  inches  for  400  feet 
in  depth,  and  if  salt  water  was 
found  below  that  depth,  then  to 
be  reamed  out  to  a  depth  neces- 
sary to  shut  it  off.  The  con- 
tractor encountered  salt  water  at 
a  depth  of  1729  feet,  and  to  shut 
off,  in  place  of  reaming  out  the 
wall,  inserted  a  casing  inside  the 
five  and  five-eighths-inch  casing 
and  made  the  remainder  of  the 
well  four  and  one-half  inches  in 
diameter.  In  a  suit  on  the  con- 
tract, the  defense  being  non-com- 
pliance, held  that  it  was  no  an- 
swer to  the  defence  to  show  that 
for  the  purpose  of  testing  gas 
property  a  small  well  is  as  good 
as  a  large  one.  See  article  in  19 
Cent.  L.  J.  442,  on  substantial 
performance  of  contracts.  Ro- 
bock  V.     Peters,  13  Manitoba  124. 

3  Dennis  v.  Walsh,  16  N.  Y. 
Supp.  257;  Windham  v.  Independ- 
ent Telephone  Co.,  35  Wash.  166, 
76   Pac.   936. 

4Haller  v.  Clark,  21  D.  C.  128; 
Windham  v.  Independent  Tele- 
phone Co.,  35  Wash.  166,  76  Pac. 
936;  Gier  v.  Daiber,  148  Mich.  190, 
111  N.  W.  773,  14  Det.  Leg.  N.  183. 


§49] 


CONDITIONS   GIVING   RIGHT   TO   LIEN. 


128 


allow  a  contractor  to  recover,  yet  he  can  only  recover  the  con- 
tract price,  less  a  proper  deduction  for  work  left  undone. '^  If 
the  contract  authorizes  the  owner  to  complete  the  work  on  the 
neglect  or  refusal  of  the  contractor  so  to  do,  and  the  owner 
completes  the  work,  this  will  not  defeat  the  contractor's  right 
to  recover  a  balance  that  may  be  due  on  the  contract  after 
deducting  the  cost  of  completion.*^  Unless  time  be  made  of 
the  essence  of  the  contract,  failure  to  complete  within  a  stipu- 
lated time  will  not  defeat  recovery  for  a  substantial  perform- 
ance.'^ If  a  contract  is  to  be  performed  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  architect,^  or  owner,  such  satisfaction  must  be  shown.^ 
However,  neither  the  ovvner,^*^  nor  the  architect  can  act  un- 
justly or  capriciously  in  such  a  matter.  There  must  be  some 
substantial  reason  to  justify  a  rejection  of  the  work.^*^  If  the 
owner  failed  to  furnish  materials  as  agreed,  and  for  that  rea- 
son the  work  is  not  completed,i^  or  it  is  abandoned  by  him,^^ 


5  Moore  v.  Dugan,  179  Mass.  153, 
60  N.  E.  488;  Holl  v.  Long,  34 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  1,  68  N.  Y.  Supp. 
522;  Bates  v.  Trustees  of  Ma- 
sonic Hall,  &c.,  Fund,  7  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  609,  27  N.  Y.  Supp.  951; 
Moore  v.  Carter,  146  Pa.  St.  492, 
23  Atl.  243,  29  W.  N.  C.  274; 
Sherry  v.  Madler,  123  Wis.  621,  101 
N.  W.   1095. 

6  McGrath  v.  Morgan,  72  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  152,  76  N.  Y.  Supp. 
412. 

''  Sedgwick  v.  Concord  Apart- 
ment House  Co.,  104  111.  App.  5; 
Heckmann  v.  Pinkney,  81  N.  Y. 
211;  Phillip  v.  Gallant,  62  N.  Y. 
256;  Eisendrath  Co.  v.  Gebhardt, 
222  111.  113,  78  N.  E.  22;  Jones 
on  liens,   §  1599. 

8  Illinois. — Barney  v.  Giles,  120 
111.  154,  11  N.  E.  206;  Vermont  St. 
M.  E.  Church  v.  Brose,  104  111. 
206;  Ewing  v.  Fiedler,  30  111.  App. 


202;  Provost  v.  Shirk,  223  111. 
468,   79   N.   E.  178. 

Wisconsin. — Boden  v.  Maher,  95 
Wis.  65,  69  N.  W.  980;  Forster 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Atkinson,  94  Wis. 
578,  69  N.  W.  347;  Hudson  v.  Mc- 
Cartney, 33  Wis.  331. 

9  Boots  V.  Steinberg,  100  Mich. 
134,  58  N.  W.  657;  Provost  v. 
Shirk,   223  111.   468,   79   N.   E.   178. 

9a  Windham  v.  Independent  Tel- 
ephone Co.,  35  Wash.  166,  76  Pac. 
936;  Mindeman  v.  Douville,  112 
Wis.   413,  88  N.  W.   299. 

i«  Wendt  V.  Vogel,  87  Wis.  462, 
58  N.  W.  764;  Gier  v.  Daiber,  148 
Mich.  190,  111  N.  W.  773,  14  Det. 
Leg.  N.  183. 

11  Pacific  Rolling  Mill  Co.  v. 
Bear  Valley  Irr.  Co.,  120  Cal.  94, 
52  Pac.  136,  65  Am.  St.  158n; 
Busfield  V.  Wheeler,  96  Mass.  (14 
Allen)  139. 

12  Huetter  v.  Redhead,  31  Wash. 
320,  71   Pac.   1016. 


129 


CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE  OF  DUTY. 


:§49 


or  changed  by  mutual  consent,  the  contractor's  rights  will  not 
be  affected. ^^  If,  however,  the  owner  rescinds  the  contract 
before  any  work  is  done,  no  right  to  a  lien  will  exist.  In  such 
cases  the  contractor's  remedy  is  for  breach  of  the  contract. ^^ 
If  he  has  commenced  his  work  before  the  owner  rescinds  the 
contract,^^  or  the  owner  fails  to  perform  his  part  of  the  con- 
tract,^^  or  the  work  is  suspended  by  fault  of  the  owner,  he  may 
have  his  lien  for  the  work  performed.^"  However,  failure  to 
make  payments  as  required  in  the  contract  will  not  justify  the 
contractor  in  abandoning  his  contract  unless  such  payments 
are  made  a  condition  precedent  to  the  performance  of  the 
work. IS  Generally,  however,  a  workman  or  contractor  who 
undertakes  to  perform  the  entire  contract  cannot,  without  some 


13  Holl  V.  Long,  34  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  1,  68  N.  Y.  Supp.  522.  Where 
the  tenant  contracted  to  put  in 
an  elevator,  and  took  out  an  old 
one,  and  partly  put  in  a  new  one, 
the  contractor  had  no  lien.  New 
York  Elevator  Supply,  &c.  Co.  v. 
Bremer,  74  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  400, 
77  N.   Y.   Supp.   509. 

14  Horr  V.  Slavik,  35  111.  App. 
140;  McLagan  v.  Brown,  11  111. 
519. 

15  Vail  V.  Meyer,  71  Ind.  159; 
Howes  V.  Reliance  Wire-Works 
Co.,  46  Minn.  44,  48  N.  W.  448; 
Justice  V.  Elwert,  28  Ore.  460,  43 
Pac.   649. 

le  Smith  v.  Norris,  120  Mass. 
58.  Pay  for  work  as  agreed. 
Hunter  v.  Walter,  58  Hun.  (N.  Y.) 
607,    12    N.    Y.    Supp.    60. 

Destroyed  by  wind. — The  de- 
fendant, having  employed  a  third 
person  to  erect  the  walls  of  a 
brick  building,  contracted  with 
the  plaintiff  to  do  the  carpenter 
work  and  furnish  the  materials 
therefor,  from  time  to  time  as  the 

9 


walls  progressed,  for  a  certain 
sum;  the  plaintiff  being  entitled 
to  receive  payments  on  account 
from  time  to  time  for  the  work 
already  done,  upon  estimates  to 
be  furnished  by  the  architect  and 
presented  to  the  defendant.  A 
part  of  the  work  having  been 
done,  and  an  estimate  duly  made 
by  the  architect,  the  plaintiff  de- 
manded payment,  which  was  re- 
fused by  the  defendant.  The 
building  was  destroyed  shortly 
afterwards  by  a  gale  of  wind;  the 
plaintiff,  being  justified  in  aban- 
doning the  contract,  was  entitled 
to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien  for 
the  work  done.  Schwartz  v. 
Saunders,  46  111.  18. 

1"  Howes  V.  Reliance  Wire- 
Works  Co.,  46  Minn.  44,  48  N.  W. 
448;  Knight  v.  Norns,  13  Minn. 
473;  Dennistoun  v.  McAllister,  4 
E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  729. 

IS  Geary  v.  Bangs.  33  111.  App. 
582;  Wright  v.  Reusens,  15  N.  Y. 
Supp.  504,  590,  60  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
585    (without    opinion)  ;    McGrath 


49] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  LIEN. 


130 


cause,  quit  his  work  and  recover  on  his  contract. ^^  The  sale 
of  the  premises  is  not  sufficient  cause.^o  If  he  offers  to  per- 
form the  work  and  is  prevented,^^  by  the  owner,22  who  refuses 
to  allow  him  to  proceed,  his  right  will  not  be  defeated.^^  Of 
course  if  a  contract  is  cancelled  by  mutual  consent,  the  lien  is 
lost.^'*  An  explicit  stipulation  in  the  contract  that  the  con- 
tractor will  assert  no  lien,  will  bind  him.^^  But  the  right  of  a 
contractor  to  a  lien  will  not  be  defeated  by  a  stipulation  that  he 
will  promptly  pay  for  all  materials,^^  or  will  give  security  that 
no  liens  shall  be  filed,-^  or  that  the  building  shall  be  delivered 
free  from  liens,  or  that  all  bills  shall  be  paid  by  check  of  the 
contractor,-^  or  that  the  contractor  shall  satisfy  all  claims,^^ 
or  that  the  contractor  shall  not  permit  any  liens  to  be  set  up 
by  sub-contractors."*^     Slight  modifications  in  the  manner  of 


V.  Horgan,  72  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
152,  76  N.  Y.  Supp.  412;  Condon 
V.  Churcli  of  St  Augustine,  98  N. 
Y.  Supp.  253,  112  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)   168. 

19  Thomas  v.  Illinois  Industrial 
University,  71  111.  310;  Kinney  v. 
Sherman,  28  111.  520;  Bohem  v. 
Seabury,  141  Pa.  St.  594,  21  Atl. 
674;  Rochford  v.  Rochford,  192 
Mass.  231,  78  N.  E.  454. 

20  Cohn  V.  Wright,  89  Cal.  86, 
26   Pac.   643. 

21  Hutchins  v.  Bautch,  123  Wis. 
394,  101  N.  W.  671,  107  Am.  St. 
1014. 

22  Sproessig  v.  Keutel,  17  N.  Y. 
Supp.  839. 

23  Charnley  v.  Honig.  74  Wis. 
163,  42  N.  W.  220. 

24  Bruce  v.  Lennon,  52  Minn. 
547,  54  N.  W.  739;  Murphy  v. 
Buckman,  66  N.  Y.  297.  Where  the 
owner  abandons  the  contract  the 
contractor  may  recover  on  a 
quantum  meruit.  Powers  v.  Ho- 
gan,  67  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  255- 


25  Barker  v.  Berry,  4  Mo.  App. 
585;  Brydon  v.  Lutes,  9  Manitoba 
463. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics'  Liens,    §   90. 

26  Zarrs  v.  Keck,  40  Neb.  456, 
58   N.  W.   933. 

-'  Young  V.  Lyman,  9  Pa.  St. 
449. 

28  Schmid  v.  Palm  Garden  Imp. 
Co.,  162  Pa.  St.  211,  29  Atl.  727,  34 
W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  461;  Ritchie  v. 
Grundy,  7  Manitoba  532;  Lowen- 
stein  V.  Reynolds,  92  Tenn.  543, 
22   S.  W.   210. 

29  Childress  v.  Smith  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.)  37  S.  W.  1076;  Anly  v.  Holy 
Trinity   Church,   2   Manitoba   248. 

30  Colorado. — Aste  v.  Wilson,  14 
Colo.  App.  323,  59  Pac.  846;  Jar- 
vis  v.  State  Bank,  22  Colo.  309, 
45  Pac.  505,  55  Am.  St.  129. 

Kansas. — Clough  v.  McDon- 
ald,  18   Kan.   114. 

Maine. — :Morton  v.  Clark,  85  Me. 
357,   27  Atl.   252. 


131  REMEDY   WHERE  OWNER  SUSPENDS   WORK.  [§  50 

the  execution  of  the  contract  will  not  destroy  the  right  to  a 
lien,^^  especially  if  the  owner  has  assented  thereto.^^ 

§  50.     Remedy  where  owner  suspends  work.     Ohio  statute. 

— Section  3205  of  the  Ohio  statutes  provides  that  if  the  progress 
of  completion  of  the  work  on  any  property  designated  in  this 
chapter,  be  suspended  by  the  default  or  decease  of  its  owner, 
without  consent  of  such  head  or  subcontractor,  or  material 
man,  he  or  they,  or  any  of  them,  may  proceed  with  the  work, 
in  accordance,  hoAvever,  with  the  terms  of  the  original  plan  or 
contract,  and  on  completion  thereof,  have  either  or  all  the 
remedies  provided  by  this  chapter. '^'^ 

§  51.  Construction  of  the  Ohio  statute. — The  supreme  court 
of  Ohio  has  said  that,  "The  terms  of  this  section  are  plain  and 
need  no  construction. "^  The  court  continuing,  says,  "If  the 
work  be  suspended  by  the  decease  of  the  owner  of  the  prop- 
erty, and  such  suspension  is  without  the  consent  of  the  head 
contractor,  or  of  the  subcontractor,  or  of  the  material  man,  he 
or  they,  or  any  of  them  not  consenting  to  the  suspension,  may 
proceed  with  the  work  in  accordance  with  the  original  plan 
or  contract,  and,  on  the  completion  thereof,  such  person  or 
persons  may  have,  either  or  all  of  the  remedies  provided  in  the 
mechanics'  lien  act."  Such  lien  precedes  that  of  a  judgment 
creditor  of  a  devisee.^ 

Montana.— Miles    v.    Coutts,    20  32  Hough  v.  Collins,  176  111.  188, 

Mont.  47,  49  Pac.  393.  52  N.  E.  847;   McCue  v.  Whitwell, 

Pennsylyania.— Schmid  v.  Palm  156    Mass.    205,    30    N.    E.    1134; 

Garden  Imp.  Co.,  162  Pa.  St.  214,  Sweatt  v.  Hunt,  42  Wash.   96,   84 

29    Atl.    727;    Lucas    v.    O'Brien,  Pac.   1. 

159  Pa.  St.  535,  28  Atl.  364;   Iron  2374  Gen.  Laws,  p.  168,  sec.  18 

Works  V.  O'Brien,  156  Pa.  St.  172,  (S.  &  C.  835). 

27  Atl.  131,  36  Am.  St.   30;   Nice  1  Holbrook  v.  Ives,  44  Ohio  St. 

V.  Walker,  153  Pa.  St.  123,  35  Atl.  516,  9  N.  E.  228. 

1065,   34  Am.  St.   688.  See  §  64. 

31  Montandon  v.  Deas,  14  Ala.  33,  2  Holbrook  v.  Ives,  44  Ohio  St. 

48  Am.  Dec.  84.  516,  9  N.  E.  228. 


§  52]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN.  132 

§  52.     Construction  of  Ohio  statute ;  rights  of  subcontractor. 

— It  will  be  observed  that  this  section  makes  provision  only  for 
cases  where  the  work  is  suspended  by  the  death  or  default  of 
the  owner.  If  the  contractor  abandons  the  contract  the  sub- 
contractor is  not  entitled  to  complete  the  w^ork  against  the 
owner's  wish.^  Where  the  owner  dies,  the  subcontractor  or 
material  man  should  separate  his  lien  and  file  one  for  the  work 
done  or  material  furnished  before  the  death,  and  one  for  work 
done  after  the  death.**  The  rights  of  the  subcontractor  be- 
come fixed  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  head  contractor.^ 
If  sureties  on  a  contract  complete  the  contract  to  save  them- 
selves, there  being  no  objection  on  the  part  of  the  owner,  they 
will  be  entitled  to  protection.^ 

§  53.  Lien  to  persons  not  under  direct  contract  with  the 
owner. — When  the  statutes  were  first  passed  creating  the  right 
to  mechanics'  liens  they  were  confined  not  only  to  particular 
persons  but  likewise  required  that  the  person  to  whom  the 
right  was  given  should  have  made  a  contract  with  the  owner. 
Afterwards  for  reasons  wdiich  were  no  doubt  along  the  same 
line  that  caused  the  original  passage  of  the  law,  the  scope  was 
extended  to  include  persons  who  w^ere  not  under  a  direct  con- 
tract with  the  owner.i     Some  courts  assign  as  the  reason  for 

3  Sturm    V.    Ritz,    7    Ohio    Dec.  SO  Mo.  App.  95,  2  Mo.  App.  Repr. 

(Re.)    135,  1  Ohio  L.  Bull.  150.  549. 
•1  Williams    v.    Webb,    2    Disnej'  IV  e  w     York. —  Pendleburg    v. 

(Ohio)    430.  Meade,    1    E.    D.    Smith    (N.    Y.), 

5  Bergin  v.  Braun,  15  Ohio  Dec.  728;    Dixon  v.  La  Farge,  1  E.  D. 

383,  3  Ohio  N.  P.    (N.  S.)    150.  Smith    (N.    Y-),    722;    Haswell    v. 

c  Port     Clinton     v.      Cleveland  Goodchild.  12  Wend.   (N.  Y.),  373; 

Stone   Co.,    6   Ohio  Cir.   Dec.   218,  Broderick    v.     Poillon,     2    E.     D. 

10  Ohio  C.  C.  1.  Smith    (X.   Y.)    554.     The   statute 

1  Connecticut. —  Spaulding         v.  provides    that    any    person    who 

Thompson  Ecclesiastical   Soc,   27  shall   furnish    any   such    material 

Conn.  573.  under  contract  with  the  contract- 
Missouri. — Kling      V.      Railway  or  may  obtain  a  lien.    This  means 

Const.  Co.,  4  Mo.  App.  574;  West-  more  than  that  an  ordinary  con- 

ern    Sash,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Buckner,  tract  shall  exist  between  the  sell- 


133  sub-contractor's  lien.  [§  53 

this  that  there  was  a  tendency  of  land-owners  to  enter  into 
contracts  at  a  figure  so  low  that  the  original  contractor  could 
make  no  profit,  unless  he  refused  to  pay  his  employees  and 
therefore  to  prevent  this  fraud  the  scope  of  the  act  was  ex- 
tended.2  But  while  this  may  have  been  a  reason  the  law  is 
no  doubt  based  largely  upon  the  equitable  principle  that  a 
man's  labor  or  his  money  having  gone  into  the  property  of  an- 
other, such  property  should  be  held  liable  to  pay  for  the  same. 
However,  all  these  statutes  have  provided, — although  in 
dififerent  forms, — that  the  person  asking  a  lien  who  was  not 
in  privity  of  contract  with  the  owner  must  work  out  his  rights 
through  the  contract  made  between  a  person  termed  the 
"principal  contractor,"  and  the  owner.  All  persons  who  are 
entitled  to  a  lien  and  not  being  under  direct  contract  with  the 
owner,  in  some  sense,  may  be  said  to  be  subcontractors,  al- 
though by  reason  of  the  particular  services  or  duties  they  may 
perform,  they  may  also  sometimes  be  called  material  men  and 
laborers.  A  subcontractor  is  defined  as  one  who  has  entered 
into  a  contract,  express  or  implied,  for  the  performance  of  an 
act  with  the  person  who  has  already  contracted  for  its  per- 
formance ;  and  the  subcontract  as  "a  contract  by  one 
who  has  contracted  for  the  performance  of  labor  or  services, 
with  a  third  party  for  the  whole  or  part  performance  of  that 
labor  or  service.''^  The  basis  of  these  laws  may  be  said  to 
be  one  of  agency.  The  owner  at  the  time  he  makes  the  con- 
tract for  the  erection  of  the  building  is  presumed  to  know  that 

er    and    purchaser    that    the    pur-  2  Merrigan  v.  English,   9   Mont. 

chaser     shall     pay    the     contract  113,  22  Pac.  454,  5  L.  R.  A.  837. 

price.      It    means    that    the    sub-  See    Dec.   &   Am.   Dig.   tit.  Me- 

contractor  shall  contract  with  ref-  chanics'  Liens,  §  94. 

erence    to   the    original   contract;  3  California, — Davis    v.    Living- 

that  is,  he  must  have  knowledge  ston,  29  Cal.  283. 

of    such    original    contract,    and  Delaware. — Travis   v.   Meredith, 

that  the  material  to  be  furnished  2  :\Iarv.  (Del.)   376,  43  Atl.  176. 

is  to  go  to  the  betterment  of  some  Illinois. — Shaar  v.  Knickerbock- 

particular      estate.        James      v.  er  Ice  Co.,  149  111.  441,   37  N.  E. 

Hayes,  63  Kan.   133,   65   Pac  241.  54. 


§53] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO  LIEN. 


134 


necessarily  the  contractor  can  not  do  all  of  the  work  himself, 
and  he  therefore  impliedly  agrees  that  the  contractor  may  get 
the  necessary  things  that  he  cannot  furnish  himself,  and  hence 
his  property  is  justly  bound  for  payment  of  the  same.  These 
laws  have  been  held  constitutional  in  a  number  of  cases.* 
Generally  there  need  be  no  understanding  that  the  persons 
furnishing  the  labor  or  material  contemplate  the  filing  of  a 
lien.^  They  may  even  not  know  that  they  have  such  a  right,^ 
necessarily  there  is  no  privity  of  contract  between  the  owner 
and  the  subcontractor.'^  On  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
work  is  of  a  character  that  will  give  the  lien,  the  same  rules 
apply  as  are  applied  to  contracts  made  direct  by  the  owner.^ 
If  the  statute  permits  the  owner  to  file  his  contract  with  the 
recorder  and  by  that  means  escape  liability  to  subcontractors^ 
and  he   does  not  avail  himself  of  this   provision,  he  will  be 


Michigan. — Fuller  v.  Detroit 
Loan  «S;  Bldg.  Assn.,  119  Mich.  71, 
77  N.  W.   642. 

Oregon. — Smith  v.  "Wilcox,  44 
Ore.  323,  74  Pac.  708. 

The  fact  that  a  building  con- 
tract in  relation  to  property,  held 
in  the  names  of  the  individual 
partners,  is  made  with  the  firm, 
does  not  show  that  the  contractor 
was  a  subcontractor,  the  firm  be- 
ing the  contractor.  Hill  v.  Gray, 
81  Mo.  App.  456;  Stroebel  v. 
Ochse,  14  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  522,  35  N. 
Y.  Supp.  1089;  Vogel  v.  Whit- 
more,  72  Hun  (N.  Y.)  417,  25  N. 
Y.  Supp.  202;  Kahler  v.  Carru- 
thers,  18  Tex.  Civ.  App.  216,  45 
S.  W.  160;  Harbeck  v.  Southwell, 
18   Wis.   419    [439]. 

4  Parker  v.  Bell,  7  Gray  (Mass.) 
429;  L-aird  v.  Moonan,  32  Minn. 
358,  20  N.  W.  354;  Spofford  v. 
True,  33  Me.  409 ;  Colter  v.  Frese, 
45    Ind.    96;    White    v.   Miller,    18 


Pa.  St.  52;  in  which  case  Chief 
Justice  Gibson  delivered  the  opin- 
ion of  the  court;  Merrigan  v.  Eng- 
lish, 9  Mont.  113,  22  Pac.  454,  5 
L.  R.  A.  837. 

5  Bassett  v.  Bertorelli,  92  Tenn. 
548,   22   S.  W.   423. 

G  Mallory  v.  La  Crosse  Abat- 
toir Co.,  SO  Wis.  170,  48  N.  W. 
1071. 

"  Spalding  v.  Dodge,  6  Mackey 
(D.  C.)  289. 

8  Siebrecht  v.  Hogan,  99  Wis. 
437,  75  N.  W.  71.     See  §§  12-18. 

Damages  for  enforced  idleness. 
— Under  the  general  laws  relat- 
ing to  mechanics'  liens,  the  sub- 
contractor is  not  entitled  to  a  lien 
upon  the  premises,  nor  action 
against  the  own.er  for  damages 
and  expenses  incurred  through 
idleness  enforced  by  the  default 
or  negligence  of  the  principal 
contractor.  Tabor  v.  Armstrong, 
9  Colo.  285,  12  Pac.  157. 


135  DIFFERENT  SYSTEMS   FOR  LIENS.  [§  54 

liable.^  Death  of  the  owner/'^  or  sale  of  the  premises,  will 
not  defeat  the  subcontractor's  rights. ^i  If  the  work  is  per- 
formed on  a  public  building  which  is  not  subject  to  a  lien, 
the  right  will  be  transferred  to  the  fund.^^  ^g  ^  general  rule 
it  may  be  said  that  the  labor  or  material  must  not  be  furnished 
upon  the  individual  credit  of  the  contractor,!^  nor  upon  a 
false  representation.!^  The  owner  is  not  personally  liable  for 
the  demand  unless  by  his  acts  he  makes  himself  liable. ^^  The 
owner's  property  is  bound  only  when  the  subcontractor  keeps 
within  the  scope  of  the  principal  contract.!^ 

§  54.  Different  systems  for  liens  to  persons  not  under  direct 
contract. — The  various  laws  relating  to  liens  allowed  to  per- 
sons who  do  not  sustain  contractual  relations  with  the  owner, 
have  divided  themselves  into  two  systems — the  one  giving  a 
lien  directly,  and  the  other  working  through  the  contractor. 
The  courts  and  text  book  writers  have  designated  these  the 
"New  York"  and  "Pennsylvania"  systems.     In  the   working 

^  Van  Pelt   v.   Hartough,   31   N.  senting  himself  as  the  contractor 

J.   L.    (2   Vroom)    331;    Tatum   v.  or    architect,    the    party    furnish- 

Cherry,  12  Ore.  135,  6  Pac.  715.  ing  the  materials  has  no  right  to 

10  Watrous  v.  Elmendorf,  55  a  lien,  and,  as  it  was  his  duty  to 
How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)   461.  know  the  relation  of  the  alleged 

11  Mears  v.  Dickerson,  2  Phila.  contractor  to  the  owner,  the  loss 
Pa.  12  (19).  If  the  statute  al-  should  fall  on  him,  rather  than  on 
lows  the  owner  to  pay  to  subcon-  an  owner  who  has  already  paid 
tractor  "what  he  thinks  is  due,"  for  the  materials  and  protected 
the  fact  that  the  principal  himself  as  much  as  possible, 
contractor  has  rejected  the  sub-  Brown  v.  Cowan,  110  Pa.  St. 
contractor's  claim  will  not  pre-  588,  1  Atl.  520;  Siebrecht  v.  Ho- 
vent  his  lien.  Reeve  v.  Elmen-  gan,  99  Wis.  437,  75  N.  W.  31. 
dorf,  38  N.  J.  L.   (9  Vroom),  125.  15  Morrison  v.  Hancock,  40  Mo. 

12  Coney  v.   Dorsey,  3  Ohio    (N.  561.     See  §§  68,  69. 

P.)    162;    Jewell   County  v.  Snod-  ig  Seeman  v.  Biemann,  108  Wis. 

grass  &c.  Mfg.   Co.,   52   Kan.   253,  365;     84    N.    W.    490;     Beach    v. 

34  Pac.  741.  Stamper,  44   Ore.  4,  74   Pac.   208, 

13  Pacific  Rolling  Mill  Co.  v.  102  Am.  St.  597;  Knauft  v.  Mil- 
Hamilton,  61  Fed.  476.  ler,   45   Minn.    61,   47   N.   W.    313; 

14  Where  materials  are  obtained  Larkins  v.  Blakeman,  42  Conn, 
by  a   party  on  his  falsely  repre-  292. 


§  54]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO   LIEN.  136 

out  of  the  rights  of  the  parties  entitled  to  lien  who  are  not 
contractors  directly  with  the  owner,  under  these  two  different 
systems,  in  matters  requiring  notice,  different  rules  may 
prevail.  Some  states  have  at  one  time  had  one  system  and  at 
another  time  the  other. ^  "The  Xew  York"  system  gives  to 
the  subcontractor  a  lien  by  way  of  subrogation,  as  it  is  termed 
by  the  text  writers,  which  is  accomplished  by  a  notice  given 
to  the  owner  by  the  subcontractor,  which  notice  specifies  the 
probable  value  of  the  services  to  be  performed,  or  the  materials 
to  be  furnished,  and  the  owner  is  then  required  to  withhold 
from  the  contractor  money  due  to  the  latter  to  such  an  amount 
as  will  meet  the  demand.  Under  this  system,  if  the  principal 
contractor  at  the  time  notice  is  given  is  entitled  to  no  lien, 
the  subcontractor  can  have  none.^^  It  has  been  said,  however, 
that  this  rule  goes  to  the  lienability  of  the  claim  and  not  to 
its  enforcement.2  The  fact  that  the  owner  knows  that  the 
work  is  being  done  will  not  be  sufficient.^  Where  the  con- 
tractor allows  the  owner  to  retain  funds  to  pay  the  subcon- 
tractor, the  owner  can  not  refuse  to  do  so,  and  if  the  contractor 
abandons  his  contract  and  the  owner  finishes  it  where  the  con- 
tract permits  him  to  do  so,  the  subcontractor  will  have  his 
lien. 4     Where  a  building  is  completed  by  sureties  of  the  con- 

1  Hunter  v.   Truckee  Lodge,  14  2  Seeman  v.  Biemann,  108  Wis. 

Nev.  24.  36.5,  84  N.  W.  490. 

la  Illinois. — Von  Platen  v.  Win-  3  Butler     v.     Aquehonga     Land 

terbotham,   203  111.   198,   67  X.   E.  Co.,  86  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    439,  83 

843.  X.    Y.    Supp.    874. 

Louisiana. — Schwartz     v.     Cro-  ^  Travis  v.  Smith,  6  N.  Y.  271 ; 

nan,    30    La.   Ann.    993;    Baker   v.  Van  Clief  v.  Van  Vechten,  55  Hun. 

Pagaud,    26    La.    Ann.    220;    First  (X.    Y.)    467,   8    N.   Y.    Supp.    760. 

IMunicipalitj'  v.  Bell,    4   La.   Ann.  Under  Ky.  St.  2467  providing  that 

121;  Whitla  v.  Taylor,  6  La.  Ann.  no  lien  shall  exist  in  favor  of  a 

480.  subcontractor    in    case    the    con- 

Jfeiv    Hampshire. — Cudworth   v.  tractor  himself  is  not  entitled  to 

Bostwick,    69    X.    H.    536,    45    Atl.  a    lien,    where    the    owner    owed 

408.  the    principal    contractor    at    the 

New  Jersey. — St.  Peter's  Catho-  time    the    subcontractor's    notice 

lie   Church   v.   Vannote,    66   N.   J.  for    lien    was    sei'ved,    but    after- 

Eq.  78,  56  Atl.  1037.  wards  resumed  possession  of  the 


137  DIFFERENT  SYSTEMS   FOR   LIENS.  [§  54 

tractor,  their  claim  is  subrogated  to  that  of  the  contractor.^ 
The  other  system  is  the  "Pennsylvania"  system  and  gives  a 
direct  lien  to  the  laborer  or  subcontractor,  either  by  an  agency 
created  by  the  statute,  or  by  an  implied  agency  vested  in  the 
original  contractor.  Under  the  "New  York"  system  the  sub- 
contractor cannot  recover  more  than  is  due  from  the  owner 
to  the  contractor,  that  is  to  say,  he  is  bound  by  the  original 
contract,  while  under  the  "Pennsylvania"  system,  the  original 
contract,  or  payment  of  the  original  contractor  is  no  defense  to 
a  claim  of  the  subcontractor.  Whatever  sum  is  due  the  sub- 
contractor, he  has  a  direct  lien  therefor,  and  the  lien  of  the 
principal  contractor  is  subordinate  thereto.'^  Under  this  sys- 
tem of  allowing  direct  liens,  whatever  the  statute  requires  to 
be  done  must  be  done,  and  if  an  owner  can  escape  liens  of  the 
subcontractor,  by  recording  his  contract  and  he  fails  to  do  so, 
his  property  will  be  bound. ^  If  notice  is  required  to  be  given 
and  it  is  not,  there  may  be  a  direct  lien  under  some  statutes.^ 
The  principle  of  agency  generally  applies  to  a  direct  lien.^*^ 

property  because  of  the  contract-  9  Mont.  113,  22  Pac  454,  5  L.  R. 

or's    unnecessary    delay    in    com-  A.   837. 

pleting  the  work,  and  used  the  Pennsjlrania. —  Linden  Steel 
amount  he  owed  the  contractor  Co.  v.  Rough  Run  Mfg.  Co.,  158 
in  paying  for  finishing  the  work,  Pa.  St.  238,  27  Atl.  895,  33  W.  N. 
as  the  contract  stipulated  he  Cas.  (Pa.)  244;  Willey  v.  Top- 
might  do  in  that  event,  the  sub-  ping,  146  Pa.  St.  427,  23  Atl.  335; 
contractor  has  no  lien.  Watts  Schroeder  v.  Galland,  134  Pa.  St. 
V.  Metcalf  (Ky.)  66  S.  W.  824,  23  277,  19  Atl.  632,  19  Am.  St.  691; 
Ky.   L.  2189.  White  v.  Miller,  18  Pa.  St.  52. 

5  St.  Peter's  Catholic  Church  v.  Tennessee. — Green  v.  Williams, 

Vannote,   66  N.   J.  Eq.  78,  56  Atl.  92  Tenn.  220,  21  S.  W-  520,  19  L. 

1037.  R.  A.  478. 

7  Hunter  v.   Truckee   Lodge,  14  »  Ballou  v.   Black,   21  Neb.   131, 

Nev.  41.  31  N.  W.  673.     See  §  45. 

sCaliforni  a. — Macomber    v.  lo  Missouri. — Deardorff  v.  Ever- 

Bigelow,  126  Cal.  9,  58  Pac.  312;  hartt,  74  Mo.  37. 
Coss  V.  MacDonough,  111  Cal.  662,  IVebraslia — Pomeroy    v.    White 

44    Pac.    325;     Davies-Henderson  Lake  Lumber  Co.,  33  Neb.  243,  49 

Lumber  Co.  v.  Gottschalk,  81  Cal.  N.    W.    1131;     Doolittle    v.    Good- 

641,    22  Pac.  860.  rich,  13  Neb.  296,  13  N.  W.  400. 

Montana. — Merrigan  v.  English, 


55] 


CONDITIONS   GIVING   RIGHT   TO   LIEN. 


138 


§  55.     Contract  where  lien  is  not  under  direct  contract  with 

owner. — While  as  shown  in  the  previous  sections,  a  Hen  may 
be  worked  out  through  the  lien  of  a  contractor  yet  in  all  cases 
this  lien  must  have  for  its  basis  a  contract  between  the  owner 
and  the  principal  contractor,  otherwise  there  can  be  no  lien.^ 
No  particular  form  is  required  for  such  a  contract,^  but  it  is 
well  settled  that  the  work  done  or  materials  furnished  must 
be  within  the  terms  of  the  original  contract.^      And  it  is  pre- 


IVevada — Hunter  v.  Truckee 
Lodge,   14   Nev.    24. 

Oregon. — Pilz  v.  Killingswoith, 
20  Ore.  432,  26  Pac.  305. 

Pennsylrania. — Brown  v.  Cow- 
an, 110  Pa.  St.  588,  1  Atl.  520. 

United  States. — Pacific  Rolling 
Mill  Co.  V.  Hamilton,  61  Fed.  476. 

There  are  two  systems  gener- 
ally adopted  throughout  the 
United  States — one  known  as  the 
"New  York  System,"  the  other 
as  the  "Pennsylvania  System." 
The  former  gives  to  the  subcon- 
tractor a  lien  by  way  of  subro- 
gation, as  it  is  termed  by  the 
text  writers,  which  is  accom- 
plished by  a  notice  given  to  the 
owner  by  the  subcontractor, 
which  notice  specifies  the  prob- 
able value  of  the  services  to  be 
performed  or  of  the  materials  to 
be  furnished,  and  the  owner  is 
therefore  entitled  to  withhold 
from  the  contractor  money  due 
to  the  latter  to  such  an  amount 
as  will  meet  the  demand.  These 
are  the  general  features  of  the 
New  York  system,  and  such  was 
the  system  prevailing  in  this  ter- 
ritory prior  to  March,  1887,  as 
will  appear  from  an  inspection  of 
sections  820  to  824,  inclusive,  of 
the  Revised  Statutes.  The  other, 
or  Pennsylvania   system,   gives   a 


direct  lien  to  the  laborer  or  sub- 
contractor, either  by  an  agency 
created  by  the  statute,  or  by  an 
implied  agency  vested  in  the  orig- 
inal contractor.  *  *  *  Under  the 
New  York  system  the  subcon- 
tractor cannot  recover  more  than 
is  due  from  the  owner  to  the  con- 
tractor— that  is  to  say,  he  is 
bound  by  the  original  contract, 
while  under  the  other  system  the 
original  contract,  or  payment  to 
the  original  contractor,  is  no  de- 
fense to  a  claim  of  a  subcon- 
tractor. *  *  *  Thus  it  will  be  seen 
the  New  York  system,  or  the 
system  generally  known  as  that 
of  "equitable  subrogation,"  was 
the  law  regulating  .  the  liens  of 
mechanics  in  this  territory  prior 
to  the  act  of  March,  1887.  Mer- 
rigan  v.  English,  9  Mont.  113,  22 
Pac.   454,  5  L.   R.  A.  837. 

1  Alderman  v.  Hartford  &c. 
Transp.  Co.,  66  Conn.  47,  33  Atl- 
589;  Consociated  Presbyterian 
Soc.  of  Green's  Farms  v.  Staples, 
23  Conn.  544;  Valley  Lumber  & 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Nickerson,  13  Idaho 
682;    93  Pac.   24. 

2  Wilson  V.  Sleeper,  131  Mass. 
177. 

3  Siebrecht  v.  Hogan,  99  Wis. 
437.  75  N.  W.  71;  McCreary  v. 
Bristol,  97  Tenn.  469. 


139  CONTRACT  WHERE  LIEN  IS  NOT  UNDER  DIRECT  CONTRACT.    [§  55 

sumed  that  the  subcontractor  completes  his  work  before  the 
time  fixed  for  the  completion  of  the  principal  contract.^*  From 
the  nature  of  the  case  an  owner  well  knows  that  a  principal  con- 
tractor necessarily  cannot  do  all  the  work  nor  furnish  all  the  ma- 
terial required,  hence  the  principal  contract  being  shown,  the  con- 
sent of  the  owner  to  the  principal  contractor  to  purchase  from 
a  sub-contractor  is  implied.'*  If  there  is  no  principal  contract, 
the  fact  that  the  owner  knew  that  the  materials  were  being 
furnished  will  not  be  sufficient  to  fix  the  owner  with  the  lien.^ 
If  the  statute  requires  that  particular  things  be  done  by  the 
owner,  as  for  example,  to  accept  in  writing  the  contract  of  a 
subcontractor,  an  order  drawn  on  the  owner  by  the  contractor 
and  by  him  accepted  will  be  a  sufficient  contract  in  writing  to 
bring  it  wathin  such  statutory  requirement.*^  In  New  Jersey 
the  statute  makes  the  owner  liable  unless  he  files  his  contract 
with  a  public  officer.  In  such  cases  it  is  not  sufficient  to  file 
the  contract  in  the  name  of  the  agent  without  disclosing  the 
name  of  the  owner.'^  However,  if  it  were  properly  filed  the 
owner  will  not  be  liable.^  As  a  general  rule  the  owner  is 
not  liable  for  more  than  was  due  the  contractor  at  the  time  the 
lien  became  effective.^  One  member  of  a  firm  can  make  a 
proper  contract.^*'  An  assignee  of  a  contract  to  furnish  ma- 
terial is  entitled  to  a  lien  where  the  assignor  has  waived  all  his 
rights  under  the  contract.*^   Statutes  allowing  the  owner  to  escape 

See   Dec.   &  Am.    Dig.    tit.   Me-  ^  Willetts   v.   Earl,    53   N.    J.   L. 

chanics'   Liens,    §    98.  270,  21  Atl.  327. 

3a  Merritt  v.  Crane  Co.,  126  111.  8  Earle  v.  Willetts,  .56  N.  J.  L. 

App.  337;  judgment  modified  (111.)  334,   29   Atl.  198.     Plans  must  be 

80  N.  E.  103.  filed.     Weaver    v.   Atlantic    Roof- 

4  Norton  v.  Clark,  85  Me.  357,  ing  Co.,  57  N.  J.  Eq.  547.  40  Atl. 
27    Atl.    252;    Moore   v.   Erickson,  858. 

158  Mass.  71,  32  N.  E.  1031.  9  Shulman   v.   Maison,    25   Misc. 

5  Woodward  v.  McLaren,  100  (N.  Y.)  765,  54  N.  Y.  Supp.  1009. 
Ind.  586.  Owner  not  personally  lo  Wahlstrom  v.  Trulson,  165 
liable.      Valley    Lumber    &    Mfg.  Mass.  429,  43  N.  E.  183. 

Co.   V.    Nickerson,    13    Idaho    682,  n  Haney  &c.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Adaza 

93  Pac.  24.  Co-Operative    Creamery    Co.,    108 

«  Hartford  Building,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Iowa  313,  79  N.  W.  79. 
Goldreyer,  71  Conn.  95,  41  Atl.  659. 


§  56]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO   LIEN.  140 

liability  by  recording  a  contract  must  be  strictly  complied 
with.i-  In  such  cases  abandonment  of  the  contract  does  not 
give  a  right  to  the  lien.^^  As  a  matter  of  course  the  filing  of 
a  contract  only  protects  the  owner  as  to  materials  furnished 
under  that  contract. ^^  And  it  should  be  filed  before  the  work 
begins  and  if  the  specifications  are  necessary  to  give  the  ma- 
terial men  full  knowledge,  they  must  be  filed.^^  The  contract 
on  file,  must  state  the  real  contract. ^^ 

§  56.  Notice  to  owner. — In  both  of  the  systems  before  re- 
ferred to  it  is  required  in  some  manner  or  method,  that  a  lien 
shall  not  be  put  on  a  person's  property  without  the  owner  hav- 
ing some  knowledge  of  the  liability  to  such  a  lien.  These  mat- 
ters are  variously  set  forth  in  different  statutes.  Under  the  New 
York  system  such  notices  are  generally  necessary  and  binding, 
to  prevent  payments  made  to  the.  principal  contractor.  Under 
the  Pennsylvania  system  it  is  to  notify  the  owner  so  that  he 
may  withhold  payments  that  may  be  due  the  principal  con- 
tractor.i     If  the  subcontractor  neglects  to  follow  the  statute 

12  La  Foucherie  v.  Knutzen,  58  i^  ^lurphy-Hardy  Lumber  Co.  v. 
N.  J.  L.  (29  Vroom)  234,  33  Atl.  Nicholas,  66  N.  J.  L.  414,  49  Atl. 
203;    Budd  v.  Lucky,  28  N.   J.   L.      447. 

484;   Freedman  v.  Sandkop,  53  N.  California. — West    Coast    Lum- 

J.   Eq.  243,   31  Atl.   232;    Scudder  ber  Co.  v.  Knapp,  122  Cal.  79,  54 

V.  Harden,  31  N.  J.  Eq.  503.  Where  Pac.   533. 

owner  buys  material  himself  he  is  Colorado. — Chicago  Lumber  Co- 

liable.     Mechanics'  Mut.  Loan  Co.  v.  Newcomb,  19  Colo.  App.  265,  74 

V.    Alberton,    23    N.    J.    Eq.    318.  Pac.  786. 

Likewise     a     purchaser,     buying  Illinois. — Springer     v.     Bower- 

without     knowledge.       Young     v.  man,    75    111.   App.    352. 

Wilson,  44  N.  J.  L.   157.  Texas. — Padgitt  v.  Dallas  Brick 

13  Willetts  V.  Earl,  53  N.  J.  L.  &  Const.  Co.,  92  Tex.  626,  50  S.  W. 
270,   21   Atl.   327.  1010. 

14  Willetts  V.  Earl,  53  N.  J.  L.  West  Virginia. — Niswander  v. 
270,  21  Atl.   327.  Black,  50  W.  Va.  188,  40  S.  E.  431. 

15  La  Foucherie  v.  Knutzen,  58  i  City  of  Crawfordsville  v. 
N.  J.  L.  234,  33  Atl.  203;  Pimlott  Brundage,  57  Ind.  262;  Wheeler  v. 
V.  Hall,  55  N.  J.  L.  192,  26  Atl.  Pierce,  167  Pa.  416,  31  Atl.  649, 
94.  46    Am.    St.    679;    Sierra    Nevada 


141 


NOTICE  TO  OM^NER. 


[§56 


he  has  no  lien.2  Unless  the  statute  so  provides,  this  notice 
need  not  be  in  writing-,^  but  if  required  to  be  in  writing  it  will 
not  be  valid  if  verbally  given.'*  Mere  knowledge  that  ma- 
terial is  being  furnished  will  not  displace  the  statutory  re- 
quirements; actual  notice  must  be  given.^     A  casual  conversa- 


Lumber  Co.  v.  Whitmore,  24  Utah 
130,  66  Pac.  779.     See  §§59,  81. 

2  Robbins  v.  Blevins,  109  Mass. 
219 ;  Kinney  v.  Blackmer,  55  Conn. 
261,  10  Atl.  568.  See  Dec.  & 
Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§      99.  In      order      therefore 

to  create  a  lien  it  is  a  fun- 
damental requirement  that  the 
owner  be  notified  as  the  statute 
requires,  and  while  no  particu- 
lar form  is  prescribed,  it  must 
be  some  affirmative  act  or  dec- 
laration which  puts  the  owner 
on  his  guard,  or  advises  him  that 
the  initiatory  step  to  acquisition 
of  a  lien  is  being  taken.  Neeley 
V.  Searight,  113  Ind.  316.  Where 
a  material  man  furnishing  lum- 
ber to  a  contractor  for  the  erec- 
tion of  a  building,  did  not  give 
notice  to  the  owner  at  or  before 
furnishing  the  material  that  he 
intended  to  avail  himself  of  his 
right  to  a  mechanic's  lien  there- 
for, and  did  not  thereafter  pro- 
cure a  written  settlement  of  ac- 
count certified  by  the  contractor 
that  it  was  just,  etc.,  and  file  the 
same  with  the  clerk  of  the  cir- 
cuit court,  as  required  by  Mansf. 
Dig.  4403,  4421  (Ind.  T.  Ann.  St. 
1899,  2870,  2888),  he  was  not  en- 
titled to  a  lien.  Campbell  v.  Wil- 
liam Cameron  &  Co.,  5  Ind.  T.  323, 
82  S.  W.  762.  Under  the  mechan- 
ic's lien  law,  which  does  not  limit 
the   rights  of  a  subcontractor   to 


the  balance,  due  the  contractor  at 
the  time  notice  of  lien  is  served, 
a  subcontractor,  by  filing  his 
claim  and  serving  notice,  is  en- 
titled to  a  lien  for  the  full  amount 
due  him,  of  which  he  cannot  be 
deprived  by  any  adjustment  be- 
tween the  owner  and  the  original 
contractor.  Wheelock  v.  Hull, 
124  Iowa  752,  100  N.  W.  863. 

Florida — Mulliken  v.  Harrison 
(Pla.)    44   So.   426. 

Ohio. — Van  Cleve  Glass  Co.  v. 
Wamelink,  10  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  12. 

Pennsylvania, — Getz  v.  Bruba- 
ker,  25  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  303;  Roth 
V.  Hobson,  5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  17;  Mc- 
Keever  v.  Albert,  4  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
251. 

3  Newhouse  v.  Morgan,  127  Ind. 
436,  26  N.  B.  158;  Albrecht  v.  C. 
C.  Foster  Lumber  Co.,  126  Ind. 
318,  26  N.  E.  157;  Vinton  v.  Build- 
ers' &c.  Assn.,  109  Ind.  351,  9  N. 
E.  177;  McLeod  v.  Capell,  66 
Tenn.    (7   Baxt.)    196. 

■i  Illinois. — McGrath  v.  Donald- 
son, 87  111.  App.  269. 

Florida. — Futch  v.  Adams  (Fla.) 

36  So.   575. 

]Vew  Jersey — Weaver  v.  Atlan- 
tic Roofing  Co.,  57  N.  J.  Eq.  547, 
40  Atl.  858;  English  v.  Warren 
(N.  J.  Eq.)   54  Atl..  860. 

Tennessee. — Shelby     v.     Hicks, 

37  Tenn.    (5  Sneed)   197. 

5  Neeley  v.  Searight,  113  Ind. 
316,   15   N.    E.    598;    Clark  v.   Ed- 


56] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO  LIEN. 


142 


tion  in  which  the  sub-contractor  informs  the  owner  that  he  is 
furnishing  material,  will  not  be  sufficient.^  The  notice  must 
be  given  to  the  owner  or  his  authorized  agent.'''  Notifying  the 
husband  of  the  owner  will  not  be  sufificient.^  If  materials  are 
furnished  and  notice  thereafter  given,  it  is  insufficient.^ 
Notice  however,  may  be  held  good  as  to  the  part  that  was 
furnished  afterwards,  even   though  some  were   furnished  be- 


wards,  119  N.  Car.  115,  25  S.  E. 
704;  La  Pasta  v.  Weil,  20  Misc. 
Rep.  (N.  Y.)  554,  46  N.  Y.  Supp. 
275.  But  under  the  Iowa  stat- 
ute, actual  knowledge  or  notice 
that  the  materials  are  furnished, 
is  sufficient  to  make  the  owner 
responsible,  if  he  pays  before  the 
expiration  of  the  time  in  which 
notice  might  be  given.  "^Tieelock 
V.  Hull,  124  Iowa  752,  100  N.  W. 
863;  Queal  v.  Stradle-y,  117  Iowa 
748,  90  N.  W.  588;  Simonson  Bros- 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Citizens'  State  Bank, 
105  Iowa  264,  74  N.  W.  905. 

G  Caylor  v.  Thorn,  125  Ind.  201, 
25  N.  E.  217;  Newhouse  v.  Mor- 
gan,  127   Ind.   436,    26  N.  E.   158. 

7  Shelby  v.  Hicks,  37  Tenn.  (5 
Sneed),  197;  Hooker  v.  McGlone, 
42  Conn.  95;  Standard  Radiator 
Co.  V.  Fox,  85  111.  App.  389.  Un- 
der Mechanic's  Lien  Law  1895,  §  5, 
requiring  that,  within  ten  days 
after  the  contract  for  a  building 
is  made,  the  owner  shall  require 
the  contractor  to  give  a  written 
statement  of  the  subcontractors, 
and,  if  any  contractor  fails  to  no- 
tify the  owner  within  five  days 
after  the  notice,  the  owner  may 
cancel  the  contract  with  the  con- 
tractor; one  who  first  deals  with 
the  contractor  more  than  ten  days 
after  the  contract  for  a  building 
is    made    cannot    take    advantage 


of  the  failure  of  the  owner  to  de- 
mand from  the  contractor  a  state- 
ment of  the  subcontractors  with- 
in such  ten  days.  Home  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Deisher,  91  111.  App.  628. 

8  Shafer  v.  Archbold,  116  Ind. 
29,  18  N.  E.  56.  A  subcontractor 
has  no  lien  on  the  wife's  prop- 
erty for  materials  furnished  to 
the  husband  for  a  building  there- 
on unless  she  was  notified  of  the 
intent  to  furnish,  or  unless  a  set- 
tlement was  made  with  the  con- 
tractor and  given  to  him  or  to  her 
agent  or  trustee.  Nelson  v.  Cover, 
47  Iowa  250;  Conway  v.  Crook, 
66   Md.   290,   7  Atl.   402. 

9  Hill  V.  Mathewson,  56  Conn. 
323,  15  Atl.  368.  Under  Code  Civ. 
Proc.  656,  as  amended  by  Laws 
1881,  c.  94,  providing  that  a  sub- 
contractor, to  avail  himself  of  the 
mechanic's  lien  law  must  give 
notice  to  the  owner  before  or  at 
at  the  time  he  furnishes  the  ma- 
terials, where  the  only  evidence 
on  the  part  of  the  subcontractor 
is  that  most  of  the  materials 
were  furnished  before  notice  was 
given,  no  foundation  is  laid  for 
the  introduction  of  the  notice  of 
lien  filed  with  the  clerk  of  the 
court.  McMillan  v.  Phillips,  5 
Dak.  294,  40  N.  W.  349. 

Massachusetts. — Robbins  v.  Ble- 
vins,  109  Mass.  219;  Morrison  v. 
:Minot,  87  Mass.    (5  Allen)    403. 


143 


CONTRACTS — STIPULATIONS. 


57 


fore  the  articles  could  be  separated. ^^  Under  some  statutes  the 
notice  may  be  given  after  the  materials  are  furnished  if  within 
the  limited  time.^^  Where  a  statute  requires  that  notice  shall 
give  the  probable  value  of  the  materials  furnished,  "probable 
value"  is  held  to  mean  an  approximate  value. ^^  jf  ^-j^g  notice 
requires  a  description  of  the  building  a  description  that  identi- 
fies the  same  will  be  sufficient. ^^  Unless  the  owner  be  noti- 
fied in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law  he  may  pay  the  original 
contractor,  without  incurring  any  liability  to  the  subcon- 
tractor.^^  This  matter  of  notice  is  one  that  comes  up  prom- 
inently when  considering  the  proceedings  that  are  necessary 
to  perfect  the  lien.^^ 

§  57.     Contracts — Stipulations    affecting    rights    of    subcon- 
tractor.— As  the  subcontractor's  right  to  a  lien,i  is  worked  out 


Pennsylvania, — Hall  v.  Black- 
burn, 173  Pa.  310,  34  Atl.  18,  37 
W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  453;  Strawick  v. 
Munhall,  139  Pa.  163,  21  Atl.  151, 
27  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  195;  East  Side 
Bank  v.  Columbus  Tanning  Co., 
15  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  357;  Moss  v. 
Greenberg,  3  Pa.  Dist.  R.  247. 

10  Hubbard  v.  Moore,  132  Ind. 
178,  31  N.  E.  534;  Quaack  v. 
Schmid,  131  Ind.  185,  30  N.  E. 
514;  French  v.  Hussey,  159  Mass. 
206,  34  N.  E.  362. 

11  Land  Mortg.  Bank  v.  Quanah 
Hotel  Co.,  89  Tex.  331,  34  S.  W. 
730;  Roanoke  Land  &  Improve- 
ment Co.  V.  Karn,  80  Va.  589; 
Johnson  v.  Amarillo  Imp.  Co-,  88 
Tex.  505,  31  S.  W.  503;  Snyder  v. 
Monroe  Eckstein  Brewing  Co.,  188 
N.  Y.  576,  80  N.  E.  1120. 

12  "Whiteside  v.  Lebcher,  7  Mont. 
473,   17    Pac.   548. 

13  Howard  v.  Allison,  27  Co.  Ct. 
(Pa.)  262.  Where  the  law  pro- 
vides that  "any  description  of  the 


lot  or  land  in  a  notice  of  lien 
will  be  sufficient  if  from  such  de- 
scription the  lot  or  land  can  be 
identified,"-  the  following  is  suf- 
ficient, "Your  church  lot  at  the 
southeast  corner  of  Alabama 
street  and  Merrill  street,  in  the 
city  of  Indianapolis,  Indiana,  as 
well  as  upon  the  new  church 
building  recently  erected  there  by 
you."  Quack  v.  Schmid,  131  Ind. 
185,    30    N.    E.    514. 

14  Southern  California  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Jones,  133  Cal.  242,  65  Pac. 
378;  Jones  v.  Carey-Lombard 
Lumber  Co.,  87  111.  App.  533;  Mc- 
Grath  v.  Donaldson,  87  111.  App. 
269;  Iowa  Stone  Co.  v.  Criss- 
man,  112  Iowa  122,  83  N.  W.  794; 
Truax  v.  Dixon,  17  Ont.  R.  366. 

15  See  §  74. 

1  Royal  V.  McPhail,  97  Ga.  457, 
25  S.  E.  512;  Bender  v.  Stettinius, 
10  Ohio  Dec.  186,  19  W.  L.  B.  163; 
Porster  Lumber  Co.  v.  Atkinson, 
94  Wis.  578,  60  N.  W.  347. 


§57] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO   LIEN. 


144 


through  the  general  contract,  such  subcontractor  and  those 
working  under  him  are  bound  to  know  the  terms  of  that  con- 
tract.2  In  the  absence  of  fraud  they  are  conclusively  pre- 
sumed to  know  the  terms  of  the  original  contract.  But  the 
subcontractor  will  not  be  held  to  know  of  changes  made  after 
the  original  contract  was  entered  into,  unless  notice  of  such 
change  has  been  brought  to  his  knowledge.^  The  fraud  of  the 
contractor,  however,  will  not  affect  rights  as  between  the  sub- 
contractor and  the  owner  ;^  the  owner  being  liable  only  in  the 
manner  agreed  upon.-*^  Some  statutes  authorize  stipulations, 
in  the  principal  contract  exempting  the  owner's  property  from 


Unconstitutional    to    oliange. — 

"In  other  words,  we  hold  that, 
the  owner  may  make  such  a  con- 
tract as  he  sees  fit,  so  long  as  it 
is  legal,  and  may  make  any  pro- 
visions as  to  the  time  and  manner 
of  payment  he  chooses,  and  such 
contract  he  has  the  absolute 
right  to  comply  with,  in  all  re- 
spects, regardless  of  his  knowl- 
edge of  subcontractors,  and  that 
they  have  furnished  labor  or  ma- 
terial which  has  gone  into  said 
building,  and  has  not  been  paid 
for,  unless  he  has,  by  the  terms 
of  his  contract,  resei'ved  the  right 
to  discharge  the  claims  of  subcon- 
tractors from  the  fund  which 
would  otherwise  be  due  to  the 
principal  contractor.  If  this  be 
not  so  then  the  right  to  contract, 
without  let  or  hindrance,  so  long 
as  the  thing  contracted  to  be  done 
is  legal,  is  a  barren  right — is  a 
right  to  be  exercised  only  sub- 
ject to  the  will  of  the  legisla- 
ture, which  may  ingraft  upon  the 
contract  of  parties,  obligations  to 
third      parties      (subcontractors). 


which  said  contracting  parties 
never  dreamed  of.  In  our  judg- 
ment the  legislature  has  no  such 
power  of  interference  with  the 
right  of  private  contract;  and  it 
cannot  thus  create  obligations 
against  one  party,  and  in  favor 
of  another,  in  plain  violation  of 
the  contract."  Epeneter  v.  Mont- 
gomery County,  98  Iowa  172. 

2  The  allowance  of  a  lien  to  a 
subcontractor  is  a  special  privi- 
lege, and  it  is  not  unreasonable 
to  require  him  to  look  to  the 
principal  contract  to  ascertain 
whether  it  is  such  as  to  justify 
him  in  becoming  a  contractor  un- 
der it.  Foster  v.  Swaback,  58  111. 
App.   581. 

3  Henley  v.  Wadsworth,  38  Cal. 
356;  McBurney  v.  Bradbury,  6  La. 
Ann.  39;  Shaver  v.  Murdoch,  36 
Cal.  293. 

-1  Diemer  v.  Philadelphia  Ger- 
man Protestant  Home,  19  Pa.  Sup. 
Ct.  225. 

■1-1  IMarski  v.  Simmerling,  46  111. 
App.  531;  Campbell  v.  Scaife,  8 
Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  74. 


145 


STIPULATIONS  AFFECTING  SUB-CONTRACTOR. 


[§57 


a  lien,  and  such  stipulations  are  usually  upheld  where  they  do 
not  work  a  fraud,  though  not  authorized  by  statute.^  But 
these  stipulations  must  be  specific  and  plain  to  relieve  the 
owner  from  liability.^  The  Pennsylvania  system  particularly 
g-ives  the  owner  protection  by  including  the  stipulations  in  the 
contract,  but  it  is  held  that  the  contract  need  not  be  in  writing 


5  California. — Henley  v.  Wads- 
worth,  38  Cal.  356;  Shaver  v.  Mur- 
dock,  36  Cal.  298;  Bowen  v.  Au- 
brey, 22   Cal.   566. 

Indiana.— Swift  Co.  v.  Dolle,  39 
Ind.  App.  653,  80  N.  E.   678. 

New  Jersey. — Bates  Mach.  Co. 
V.  Trenton  &c.  R.  Co.,  70  N.  J.  L. 
684,   58  Atl.   935. 

Pennsylvania. — F  i  d  e  1  i  t  y  Mut. 
Life  Assn.  v.  Jackson,  163  Pa.  208, 
29  Atl.  883,  34  W.  N.  C.  464,  43 
Am.  St.  789;  Bolton  v.  Hey,  148 
Pa.  156,  23  Atl.  973,  30  W.  N.  C. 
29;  Benedict  v.  Hood,  134  Pa-  289, 
19  Atl.  635;  Shroeder  v.  Galland, 
134  Pa.  277,  19  Atl.  632,  26  W. 
N.  C.  33;  Cote  v.  Schoen, 
38  W.  N.  C.  382;  Sener  v.  Bare, 
12  Montg.  Co.  Law  Repr.  115; 
Spruks  V.  Mursch,  1  Lack.  Leg.  N. 
247;  Glassport  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Wolf,  213  Pa.  407,  62  Atl.  1074. 

Tennessee. — McCrary  v.  Bristol 
Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  97  Tenn.  469. 
37  S.  W.  543. 

Wisconsin. —  Seaman  v.  Bie- 
mann,  108  Wis.  365,  84  N.  W.  490. 
The  contractor's  stipulation 
with  the  owner,  that  no  liens 
shall  be  filed,  is  binding  on 
subcontractors  and  material  men; 
and  whenever,  by  the  terms  of  his 
contract  with  the  owner,  the  con- 
tractor himself  has  no  right  to 
file  a  lien,  he  cannot  so  deal  with 
his    subcontractors    and   material 

10 


men  as  to  give  them  the  right  to 
do  so.  It  is  the  duty  of  one  who 
deals  with  an  alleged  contractor 
to  know  the  relation  he  bears  to 
the  owner;  failing  in  this  he  fur- 
nishes labor  and  material  at  his 
peril.  That  duty  can  be  prop- 
erly discharged  only  by  inquir- 
ing of  the  owner  what  the  terms 
of  the  agreement  between  him 
and  the  contractor  are.  A  fail- 
ure to  inquire,  presumes  notice 
of  every  fact  that  such  inquiry 
would  have  elicited.  McElroy  v. 
Braden,  152  Pa.  78.  See  Dec.  & 
Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  § 
101. 

e  Whittier  v.  Wilbur,  48  Cal. 
175;  Jarvis  v.  State  Bank,  22 
Colo.  309,  45  Pac.  505,  55  Am.  St. 
120.  Where  a  building  contract 
provided  that  the  contractors 
should  not  permit  any  liens  to  be 
set  up  by  any  subcontractor,  or, 
if  any  should  be  set  up,  would 
cause  them  to  be  satisfied,  and 
did  not  contain  any  provision 
against  the  filing  of  a  lien  by  the 
contractors  themselves,  it  did  not 
bar  subcontractors  from  their 
statutory  rights  to  liens,  but  only 
provided  for  their  satisfaction  by 
the  contractors  if  set  up.  Aste  v. 
Wilson,  14  Colo.  App.  323,  59  Pac. 
846.  Right  of  subcontractors  to 
lien  is  not  taken  away  by  a  pro- 


57] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO   LIEN. 


146 


to  make  the  stipulations  binding.'^  However,  the  contract  be- 
tween the  owner  and  contractor  must  be  free  from  fraud  as 
against  the  subcontractor.^     If  a  new  contract  is  made,  before 


vision  in  the  contract  of  the  prin- 
cipal contractor  obligating  him  to 
"execute  and  deliver  a  full  and 
complete  release  of  all  liens 
whatsoever"  to  any  single  lot  on 
being  paid  the  proportionate  part 
of  his  contract  price,  and  bind- 
ing him  not  to  file  any  lien  him- 
self, and  that  he  "will  not  suf- 
fer any  lien  on  the  said  65  build- 
ings that  can  in  any  manner  im- 
pair the  lien  of  the  65  mort- 
gages executed  in  favor  of  the 
G.  Co."  Gordon  v.  Norton,  186 
Pa.  168,  40  Atl.  312,  42  W.  N.  C. 
201. 

See   also — 

PeunsylTauia. — H  o  w  a  r  t  h  v. 
Chester  City  Presbyterian  Church, 
162  Pa.  17,  29  Atl.  291,  34  W.  N. 
C.  470;  Samuel  J.  Creswell  Iron 
Works  V.  O'Brien,  156  Pa.  172,  27 
Atl.  131;  Evans  v.  Grogan,  153 
Pa.  121,  25  Atl.  804;  Cook  v.  Mur- 
phy, 150  Pa.  41,  24  Atl.  630;  Tay- 
lor V.  Murphy,  148  Pa.  337,  23  Atl. 
1134,  33  Am.  St.  825;  Smith  v. 
Levick,  153  Pa.  522,  26  Atl.  97,  32 
W.  N.  C.  79;  Loyd  &  Co.  v. 
Krause,  147  Pa.  402,  23  Atl.  602, 
29  W.  N.  C.  429;  Tebay  v.  Kirk- 
patrick  &  Co.,  146  Pa.  120,  23  Atl. 
318,  29  W.  N.  C.  184;  Dersheimer 
V.  Maloney,  143  Pa.  532,  22  Atl- 
813.  A  stipulation  by  the  con- 
tractor to  deliver  the  building 
to  the  owner,  a  married  woman, 
"free  and  discharged  of  all  claims 
and  liens  of  mechanics  and  mate- 
rial men,  and  all  charges  what- 
soever," will  not  defeat  the  right 
of  a  material  man  to  a  lien  there- 


on. Murphy  v.  Morton,  139  Pa. 
345,  20  Atl.  1049;  Murphy  v.  El- 
lis, 11  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  301. 

See  also  Rice  v.  Baxter,  15  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  198;  Commonwealth  Title 
Ins.  &c.,  Co.  V.  Ellis,  8  Pa.  Dist. 
5,  22  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  86;  Rhine  v. 
Mauk,  14  Montg.  Co.  Law  Repr. 
197,  21  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  345;  Bithell  v. 
Diven,  18  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  178;  Ha- 
zelton  Plumbing  Co.  v.  Powell, 
13  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  426;  Kime  v. 
Crider,  20  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  20,  6  Pa. 
Dist.    688. 

Must  be  unambiguous. — A  waiv- 
er in  a  building  contract  of  the 
subcontractor's  statutory  right  of 
lien  must  be  unambiguous,  and, 
if  one  clause  necessarily  implies 
that  such  liens  will  be  filed,  and 
provides  for  their  release  by  the 
contractor  before  payment  of  the 
contract  price,  a  subsequent 
clause,  expressly  waiving  the  lien 
of  subcontractors,  will  be  ineffect- 
ual. Commonwealth  Title  Ins.  & 
Trust  Co.  V.  Ellis,  5  Pa.  Dist.  33; 
Shannon  v.  Philadelphia  German 
Protestant  Home  for  Aged,  16  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  250;  Sullivan  v.  Han- 
cock. 2  Pa.  Super  Ct.  525,  39  W. 
N.  C.  245. 

7  East  Stroudsburg  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Gill,  187  Pa  St.  24,  41  Atl. 
41;  McElroy  v.  Braden,  152  Pa. 
78,  25  Atl.  235,  31  W.  N.  C.  196; 
Repr.,  197,  21  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  345. 
Rhine  v.  :Mauk,  14  Montg.  Co.  Law 

s  Ballman  v.  Heron,  169  Pa. 
510,  32  Atl.  594,  37  W.  N.  C.  61. 

Secret  agreement. —  A  subcon- 
tractor for  a  house  on  a  lot  ap- 


147 


STIPULATIONS  AFFECTING  SUB-CONTRACTOR. 


[§57 


any  work  or  materials  are  furnished,  this  contract  will  control, 
and  the  subcontractor  will  be  bound  by  it.^  However,  if  the 
law  requires  the  stipulation  to  be  in  writing  and  recorded,  this 
statutory  provision  must  be  followed. ^*^  In  some  jurisdictions 
the  subcontractor  must  consent  to  stipulations  in  a  contract 
exempting  the  property  from  his  lien  before  he  will  be  bound 
thereby. ^^  And  if  he  does  not  consent  the  stipulations  will 
not  bind  him.^^  'pj^g  stipulation  in  a  contract  that  the  con- 
tractor shall  deliver  the  building  free  of  all  mechanics'  liens 
does  not  preclude  the  subcontractor  and  material  man  from 
asserting  a  lien  where  the  statute  makes  no  provision  for  such 
stipulation,  but  in  a  general  way  gives  the  subcontractor  a  lien ; 
in  such  cases  the  owner  is  presumed  to  know  the  law,  and  that 
this  stipulation  will  only  apply  as  to  liens  that  the  contractor 


parently  owned  by  the  contractor, 
in  whose  name  the  deed  stood, 
and  who  was  in  possession  and 
represented  himself  to  be  the 
owner,  is  entitled  to  a  lien  for 
materials  furnished  prior  to  the 
time  he  knew  or  should  have 
known  that  another  was  the  own- 
er, notwithstanding  a  secret 
agreement  by  the  apparent  own- 
er to  build  and  not  allow  any 
liens.  McCollum  v.  Riale,  163 
Pa.  603,  30  Atl.  282,  35  W.  N.  C. 
389,  43  Am.  St.  816.  In  re 
Assignment  of  Brumbaugh,  43  W. 
N.  C.   (Pa.  Super  Ct.)  271. 

9  New  contract. —  Where  work 
has  been  begun  under  a  building 
contract  and  proceeded  to  a  con- 
siderable extent,  and  the  contract 
contains  no  stipulation  against 
liens,  the  owner  and  the  contract- 
or cannot  cancel  the  contract,  and 
enter  into  a  new  one  containing 
a  stipulation  against  liens,  so  as 


to  defeat  the  rights  of  a  material 
man  to  file  a  lien  for  materials 
ordered  on  the  day  that  the  new 
contract  was  executed,  and  deliv- 
ered two  days  thereafter.  In  such 
a  case  the  material  man  had  a 
right  to  rely  upon  the  status  ex- 
isting at  the  time  that  authority 
was  given  to  the  contractor  to 
proceed  with  the  work.  Lee  v. 
Williams,  22  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  564, 
571;  Lee  v.  Williams,  30  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  349,  357. 

10  Atlantic  Coast  Brewing  Co. 
V.  Donnelly,  59  N.  J.  L.  48,  35  Atl. 
647;  Mehl  v.  Carey,  21  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
275. 

11  Morton  v.  Clark,  85  Me.  357, 
27  Atl.  252;  Miles  v.  Coutts,  20 
Mont.  42,  49  Pac.  393;  Gimbert  v. 
Heinsath,  11  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  339,  1 
Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  176. 

12  Aste  V.  Wilson,  14  Colo.  App. 
323,  59  Pac.  846.  When  a  con- 
tractor stipulated  that  he  will  file 


57] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  LIEN. 


148 


himself  may  have.^^  xhe  subcontractor  is  bound  by  the  stip- 
ulations as  to  payments. ^"^  Under  the  Pennsylvania  system 
allowing  a  direct  lien  on  the  property,  where  the  contract  con- 
tains a  stipulation  as  to  payment,  the  fact  that  the  owner 
promises  to  retain  sufficient  money  to  pay  all  subcontractors, 
will  not  make  the  owner  liable  as  against  the  stipulation  in  the 
contract. 1^  The  fact  that  the  consideration  is  payable  other- 
wise than  in  money,  will  not  defeat  the  subcontractor's  right.^^ 
Though  a  stipulation  not  to  file  a  lien  will  not  of  itself  pre- 
clude a  lien,  yet  the  courts  will  refuse  to  allow  the  lien  where 
the  mode  of  payment  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a  lien.^'^ 
Under  the  Massachussets  law,  if  the  owner's  consent  is  im- 
plied, and  the  contract  is  more  in  the  nature  of  a  direct  con- 


a  list  of  subcontractors  and  they 
may  be  paid  on  his  order, 
does  not  affect  a  stipulation 
against  liens.  Purvis  v.  Brum- 
baugh's Estate,  8  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
292. 

13  Smalley  v.  Gearing,  121  Mich. 
190,  79  N.  W.  1114. 

14  In  re  Assignment  of  Brum- 
baugh, 43  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.  Super. 
Ct.)  271. 

15  Waters  v.  Wolf,  2  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  200,  39  W.  N.  C.  38;  Morris 
V.  Ross,  184  Pa.  St.  241,  38  Atl. 
1084. 

IVot  in  accordance  with  con- 
tract.— Where  a  written  contract, 
containing  a  sufficient  stipulation 
against  liens,  has  been  filed  in  the 
prothonotary's  office  in  pursu- 
ance of  Act,  June  26,  1895  (P.  L. 
369),  and  the  uncontradicted  tes- 
timony of  the  contractor  and  ar- 
chitect is  that  the  contractor  had 
no  authority  to  commence  work 
other  than  that  conferred  by  the 
written  contract,  and  it  appears 
that  materials  were  furnished  to 


the  contractor  after  the  execu- 
tion of  the  contract,  and  without 
any  dealing  with  the  owner,  no 
lien  can  be  filed  for  the  materials 
thus  furnished.  Williamson  v. 
Tunis,  19  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  207. 

16  Schmid  v.  Busch,  97  Cal.  184, 
31  Pac.  893. 

1"  Jones  &c..  Lumber  Co.  v.  Mur- 
phy, 64  Iowa  165,  19  N.  W.  898; 
Kilbourne  v.  Jennings,  38  Iowa 
533;  Frost  v.  Falgetter,  52  Neb. 
692,  73  N.  W.  12;  McElroy  v. 
Braden,  152  Pa.  78,  25  Atl.  235, 
31  W.  N.  C.  196.  Where  it  is 
agreed  between  the  owner  and 
the  contractor  that  a  claim  of  the 
former  against  the  latter  shall 
be  regarded  as  a  payment  of  the 
last  installment  due  under  the 
contract,  this  is  binding  on  the 
subcontractor  filing  a  claim  for 
a  lien  thereafter;  for,  under  Code 
1873,  §  2134,  he  is  only  given  a 
lien  to  the  extent  of  the  balance 
remaining  due  to  the  contractor. 
Ewing  V.  Folsom,  67  Iowa  65,  24 
N.  W.  595. 


149  STIPULATIONS  IN  CONTRACT.  [§  57 

tract,  the  laborer  and  material  man  are  not  bound  as  to  stipu- 
lations where  they  should  work,  or  the  state  of  the  owner's  ac- 
count.is  Unless  the  owner  is  in  some  way  bound  to  retain 
payments  he  may  make  them  to  the  principal  contractor  as 
stipulated  in  the  contract. ^^  He  cannot  be  required  to  pay 
before  the  contract  calls  for  the  same.^o  The  statutory  re- 
quirements as  to  times  of  payment,^!  or  the  filing  of  contracts, 
must  be  followed.22  Where  the  statute  allows  the  owner  to 
free  himself  from  liability  to  the  subcontractor  by  stipulations 
in  the  contract,  the  fact  that  changes  shall  be  submitted  to  an 
architect,  does  not  give  the  subcontractor  a  right  to  a  lien.^s 
Neither  will  a  provision  that  a  contractor  was  to  furnish  all  the 
material  himself  exclude  the  lien.^^  A  stipulation  in  a  con- 
tract that  if  required  the  contractor  shall  furnish  security  be- 
fore he  shall  be  entitled  to  a  lien,  is  a  stipulation  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  owner  and  not  for  the  benefit  of  the  subcontractor.^^ 
If  an  owner  upon  inquiry  fails  to  state  the  terms  of  the  con- 
tract which  is  not  recorded  or  filed,  or  known,  and  he  replies 
that  he  will  see  the  subcontractor  paid  in  full,  he  will  be 
estopped  from  setting  up  a  different  contract,  or  asserting  that 
the  contractor  is  paid.^s  If  under  the  statute  there  is  no  lien, 
none  can  be  given  by  agreement  or  stipulation  to  that  elTect.^^ 

18  The  right  is  not  a  subroga-  Denison  v.  Burrill,  119  Cal.  180, 
tion  of  lien  of  principal  contract-  51  Pac.  1;  Brill  v.  De  Turk,  130 
or.  Perry  v.  Potashinski,  169  Cal.  241,  62  Pac.  462;  Merced 
Mass.  351,  47  N.  E.  1022;  Daley  v.  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bruschi,  152  Cal. 
Legate,    169    Mass.    257,   47   N.   E.  372,   92   Pac.   844. 

1013;     Bowen     v.     Phinney,     162  22  Blaisdell     v.     Dean,     9     Pa. 

Mass.  593,  39  N.  E.  283,  44  Am.  St.  Super.  Ct.  639,  44  W.  N.  C.  81. 

391;    Wahlstrom   v.    Trulson,    165  23  Kreilich   v.    Klein,    10    Phila. 

Mass.  429,  43  N.  E.  183.  (Pa.)  486;  Ford  v.  Springer  Land 

19  Epeneter       v.       Montgomery  Assn.,  8  N.  M.  37,  41  Pac.  541. 
County,  98  Iowa  159,  67  N.  W.  93;  24  ciark  v.   Huey    (Ind.),   26  N. 
Merritt  v.  Hopkins,  96  Iowa  652,  E.  52. 

65  N.  W.  1015.  25  Hurd   v.    Johnson    Park   Inv. 

20  Doughty  V.  Devlin,  1  E.  D.  Co.,  13  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  643,  34 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  625.  N.  Y.  Supp.  915. 

21  West  Coast  Lumber  Co.  v.  20  Welch  v.  Sherer,  93  111.  64. 
Knapp,  122  Cal.  79,  54  Pac.  533;  27  Lowenstein    v.    Reynolds,    92 

Tenn.  543,  22  S.  W.  210. 


§58] 


CONDITIONS   GIVING   RIGHT   TO   LIEN. 


150 


§  58.  Persons  entitled  to  lien  as  subcontractors. — Persons 
who  are  entitled  to  a  lien  not  under  contract  with  the  owner 
are  usually  called  "subcontractors"  and  sometimes  they  are 
classed  as  material  men  and  laborers,  but  the  term  "subcon- 
tractors" generally  means  all  persons  who  perform  or  furnish 
a  part  or  all  of  the  labor  or  material  called  for  in  the  principal 
contract.^  While  this  is  a  general  meaning  of  "subcontractor," 
he  is  usually  understood  to  be  a  person  who  takes  a  distinct  part  of 
the  work  or  job  including  either  or  both  work  and  material.^ 
Such  a  person  has  no  lien  unless  the  statute  gives  it  to  him.^ 
A  subcontractor  is  not  a  "journeyman"  or  "laborer,"'*  "me- 
chanic,"'' "laborer  or  furnisher  of  material,"*^  nor  one  who  con- 
tracts with  a  "subcontractor;"^  but  the  term  includes  "a  person 
who  shall  do  work  or  labor."*  If  two  jointly  undertake  the 
work  and  then  subdivide  it,  each  taking  a  separate  part,  sep- 
arately  they   are    subcontractors.^     So    if   one    contracts   and 


1  Under  contract  with  the  prin- 
cipal contractor. 

Arkansas. — Buckley  v.  Taylor, 
51  Ark.   302,   11   S.   W.   281. 

District  of  Columbia. —  Monroe 
V.  Hannan,  7  Mackey  (D.  C.)  197, 
3  L.  R.  A.  549. 

Georgia. —  Sparks  v.  Dunbar, 
102  Ga.  129,  29  S.  E.  295. 

Illinois. — Dawson  v.  Harring- 
ton, 12  111.  300. 

Iowa. — Heaton  v.  Horr,  42  Iowa 
187.  Owner  not  personally  lia- 
ble. Lonergan  v.  San  Antonio 
Loan  &  Trust  Co.  (Tex.)  104  S. 
W.  1061,  rehearing  denied  106  S. 
W.  876;  General  Supply  Co.  v. 
Hunn,   126   Ga.   615,   55   S.   E.  957. 

2  Schenck  v.  Uber,  81  Pa.  St.  31; 
Stephens  v.  Duffy,  41  Ind.  App. 
385,  83  N.  E.  268. 

3  Under  Act  August  12,  1858 
(Comp.  St.  c.  86,  §21),  giving  a 
lien  to  a  person  who  performs  la- 


bor or  materials  "by  virtue  of  a 
contract  or  agreement  with  the 
owner  or  agent,"  a  subcontractor 
has  no  lien.  Toledo  Novelty 
Works  V.  Bemheimer,  8  Minn. 
118;  Holmes  v.  Sands,  27  Miss. 
40;  Hatch  v.  Faucher,  15 
R.  I.  459,  8  Atl.  543;  Tuck  v. 
Moss  Mfg.  Co.,  127  Ga.  729,  56  S. 
E.    1001. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,  §  106. 

■i  Rivers  v.  Mulholland,  62  Miss. 
766. 

5  Kelly  V.  Bank,  McMull.  Eq.  (S. 
Car.)    431. 

6  Adams  v.  Wells,  64  N.  J.  Eq. 
211,  53  Atl.  610. 

"  Andrews  «S:C.  Co.  v.  Atwood, 
167   111.   249,   47   N.   E.   387. 

8  Hatch  V.  Faucher,  15  R.  I.  459, 
8  Atl.  543. 

9  Stroebel  v.  Ochse,  14  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)   522,  35  N.  Y.  Supp.  1089. 


151 


WHO  ARE  SUB-CONTRACTORS. 


i^JJ 


takes  in  a  partner,  they  are  principal  contractors,  and  persons 
dealing  with  them  are  subcontractors.  Unless  the  statute 
specifically  so  declares  a  subcontractor  of  a  subcontractor  is 
not  entitled  to  a  lien,^*^  the  courts  not  favoring  such  a  con- 
struction.^^ A  statute  providing  that  "all  persons  furnishing 
things  or  doing  work  shall  be  considered  subcontractors ;"  a 
person  so  furnishing  under  contract  with  the  subcontractor, 
is  included. ^2  Many  of  the  statutes  give  the  right  to  a  lien  to 
an  employe  of  a  principal  contractor, ^^  but  do  not  extend  such 
right  to  an  employe  of  a  subcontractor,^*   unless  the  owner 


10  Alabama Turcott  v.  Hall,  8 

Ala.  522. 

Colorado. — Sayre-Newton  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Union  Bank,  6  Colo. 
App.  541,  41  Pac.  844. 

District  of  Columbia. — Somer- 
ville  V.  Williams,  12  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  520;  Herrell  v.  Donovan, 
7  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  322;  Monroe 
V.  Hannan,  7  Mackey  (D.  C.)  197, 
3  L.  R.  A.  549. 

Illinois. — Smith  Bridge  Co.  v. 
Louisville  &c.,  R.  Co.,  72  111.  506; 
Rothgerber  v.   Dupuy,  64  111.  452. 

Kausas. — Nixon  v.  Cydon  Lodge 
No.  5.  56  Kan.  298,  43  Pac.  236. 

New  York. — Wood  v.  Donaldson, 
17  Wend.   (N.  Y.)   549. 

Obio. — Stephens  v.  United  Rail- 
roads Stock  Yards  Co.,  29  Ohio 
St.  227,  5  Ohio  Dec.  334,  1  Wkly. 
L.  Bull.  (Ohio),  84,  4  Am.  L.  Rec. 
669. 

Oklahoma. — Vanderberg  v.  Wal- 
ton Lumber  Co.  (Okla.),  92  Pac. 
149. 

SoutU  Carolina. — Geddes  v. 
Bowden,  19  S.  Car.  1. 

Wisconsin. — Harbeck  v.  South- 
well,  18   Wis.   419    (439). 

1 1  Connecticut. — Barlow      Bros. 


Co.  V.  Gaffney,  76  Conn.  107,  55 
Atl.   582. 

Illinois. — Culver  v.  Atwood,  170 
111.  432,  48  N.  E.  979. 

Jfew  Jersey. — Carlisle  v.  Knapp, 
51  N.  J.  L.  329,  17  Atl.  633. 

Rhode  Island. — Morrison  v. 
Whaley,  16  R.  I.  715,  19  Atl.  330. 

West  Virginia. —  McGugin  v. 
Ohio  River  R.  Co.,  33  W.  Va.  63, 
10  S.  E.  36. 

Wisconsin. — Farmer  v.  St.  Croix 
Power  Co.,  117  Wis.  76,  93  N.  W. 
830;  Dallman  v.  Clasen,  116  Wis. 
113,    92    N.   W.    565. 

12  Duignan  v.  Montana  Club,  16 
Mont.  189,  40  Pac.   294. 

13  Massachusetts. —  Clark  v. 
Kingsley,  90  Mass  (8  Allen)  543; 
Weeks  v.  Walcott,  81  Mass.  (15 
Gray)  54;  Dewing  v.  Congrega- 
tional Soc.  &c.,  79  Mass.  (13 
Gray)    414. 

New  York. — Heroy  v.  Hen- 
dricks, 4  E.'D.  Smith   (N.  Y.)   768. 

Wisconsin. — Harbeck  v.  South- 
well, 18  Wis.  419  (439).     ■ 

1^  Alabama.— Turcott  v.  Hall,  8 
Ala.  522. 

Georgia. — Heard  v.  Holmes,  113 
Ga.  159,  38  S.  E.  393. 


58] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO  LIEN. 


152 


consents  thereto,^^  or  the  statute  specifically  so  provides.^^ 
Before  it  will  be  held  that  the  statute  gives  such  a  lien  it  must 
be  so  plain  as  not  to  admit  of  a  doubt. i'^  In  some  instances, 
however,  the  lien  has  been  allowed  for  materials  that  were 
purchased  on  the  personal  credit  of  the  purchaser/^  but  this 


Illinois. — Ahern  v.  Evans,  66  111. 
125;  Rothgerber  v.  Dupuy,  64  111. 
452;  Berkowsky  v.  Sable,  43  111. 
App.  410. 

Jfew  York. — Heroy  v.  Hen- 
dricks, 4  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)   768. 

PennsylTania.  —  Kitson  v. 
Crump,   9    Phila.    (Pa.)    41. 

Texas. — Pullenwider  v.  Long- 
moor,  73  Tex.  480,  11  S.  W.  500. 

Termont. — Greenough  v.  Nich- 
ols, 30  Vt.  768. 

15  New  V.  Carroll,  73  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  564,  26  N.  Y.  Supp.  320.  An 
"employe"  is  not  a  journeyman. 
Jobsen  v.  Boden,  8  Pa.  St.  463. 

iG  Illinois. — Shaar  v.  Knicker- 
bocker Ice  Co.,  149  111.  441,  37  N. 
E.  54;  Newhall  v.  Kastens,  70  111. 
156;  Rothgerber  v.  Dupuy,  64  111. 
452. 

Indiana. — Barker  v.  Buell,  35 
Ind.  297;  Stephens  v.  Duffy,  81 
N.  E.  1154,  rehearing  denied,  41 
Ind.  App.  385,  83  N.  E.  268. 

>'ew  Jersey. — Fehling  v.  Goings, 
67  N.  J.  Eq.  375,  58  Atl.  642;  Car- 
lisle V.  Knapp,  51  N.  J.  L.  329,  17 
Atl.  633. 

Ohio. — Stephens  v.  United  Rail- 
roads Stockyard  Co.,  29  Ohio  St. 
227,  5  Ohio  Dec.  334,  1  Wkly.  L. 
Bull.  (Ohio)  84,  4  Am.  L.  Rec 
669. 

PennsylTania. — Harlan  v.  Rand, 
27    Pa.    St.    511. 

Tennessee. — Bedford  Stone  Co. 
V.  Board  of  Publication  of  Cum- 


berland  Presbyterian   Church,   91 
Tenn.  200,  18  S.  W.  406. 

Texas. — Mills  v.  Paul  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  30  S.  W.  558. 

Wisconsin. — Kirby  v.  McGarry, 
16  Wis.  68. 

17  Missouri. — Front  Rank  Steel 
Range  Co.  v.  Jeffers,  79  Mo.  App. 
174,  2  Mo.  App.  Repr.  361. 

Nebraska, — Zarrs  v.  Keck,  40 
Neb.  456,  58  N.  W.  933;  Pomeroy 
V.  White  Lake  Lumber  Co.,  33 
Neb.  243,  49  N.  W.  1131. 

New  York. — Mack  v.  Colleran, 
136  N.  Y.  617,  32  N.  E.  604. 

Tennessee. — Lowenstein  v.  Rey- 
nolds, 92  Tenn.  543,  22  S.  W.  210; 
Bedford  Stone  Co.  v.  Board  Pub- 
lication, 91  Tenn.  200,  18  S.  W. 
406. 

Texas. — Bassett  v.  Mills,  89  Tex. 
162,  34  S.  W.  93. 

IS  On  personal  credit. — Under 
Laws,  1885,  c.  342  1,  providing 
that  any  person  who  shall  fur- 
nish any  materials  used  in  erect- 
ing a  building,  with  the  consent 
of  the  owner  or  agent,  or  any 
contractor  or  subcontractor,  or 
any  other  person  contracting 
with  such  owner,  may  have  a 
lien,  one  who  furnishes  to  a  sub- 
contractor, though  on  his  person- 
al credit,  material  used  in  the 
construction  of  the  building,  is 
entitled  to  a  lien.  Vogel  v.  Luit- 
weiler,  52  Hun  (N.  Y.)  184,  5  N. 
Y.  Supp.  154. 


153  PERSONS    ENTITLED    TO    LIEN    AS    SUB-CONTRACTORS.        [§  58 

construction  is  not  generally  followed.^^  Material  men  fur- 
nishing material  to  a  principal  contractor  are  generally  en- 
titled to  a  lien,2o  such  right  resting  upon  the  statute.^i  Some- 
times, however,  it  is  said  to  rest  upon  the  fact  that  the  ma- 
terials were  furnished.22  Where  the  statute  provides  that  it 
shall  include  "a.  person  doing  or  performing  work,"  it  will  not 
include  a  person  furnishing  lumber.^s  The  earlier  laws  did  not 
give  the  right  to  a  lien  to  persons  who  furnish  material  to 
contractors.^'*  Persons  furnishing  material  to  a  material  man 
are  considered  as  a  subcontractor  of  a  subcontractor  and  will 
not  be  entitled  to  the  lien  unless  the  statutes  specifically  so 
provide. 25     Of  course  an  owner  will  not  be  held  if  there  was 


19  Western  Sash  &  Door  Co.  v. 
Buckner,  80  Mo.  App.  95,  2  Mo. 
App.  Repr.  549;  Browinski  v. 
Pickett,  113  Ky.  420,  68  S.  W. 
408,  24  Ky.  L.  305. 

20  Neeley  v.  Searight,  113  Ind. 
316,  15  N.  E.  598;  Colter  v.  Frese, 
45  Ind.  96;  Dunham  v.  Milhous, 
70  Ala.  595;  Campbell  v.  William 
Cameron  &  Co.,  5  Ind.  Terr.  323, 
82  S.  W.  762.  Either  as  a  ma- 
terial man  or  subcontractor.  Ryn- 
<lak  V.  Seawell,  13  Okla.  737,  76 
Pac.  170;  Owen  v.  Johnson,  174 
Pa.  St.  99,  34  Atl.  549,  38  W.  N. 
C.  185;  Fairhaven  Land  Co.  v. 
Jordan,  5  Wash.  729,  32  Pac.  729. 

21  Sodini  v.  Winter,  32  Md.  130. 

22  Gould  V.  Barnard,  14  Mont. 
335,  36  Pac.  317. 

23  Burst  V.  Jackson,  10  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)   219. 

2  4  Minnesota. — Toledo  Novelty 
Works  V.  Bernheimer,  8  Minn. 
118. 

Mississipi)!. — Holmes  v.  Shands, 
26  Miss.  (4  Cush.)  639;  Shotwell 
V.  Kilgore,  26  Miss.  (4  Cush.) 
125. 


JVew  York. — Burst  v.  Jackson, 
10  Barb.   (N.  Y.)   219. 

Pennsylyania,  —  Schenck  v. 
Uber,  81  Pa.  St.  31;  Lee  v.  Burke, 
66  Pa.  St.  336. 

Texas. — Shields  v.  Morrow,  51 
Tex.  393. 

25  California. — Roebling's  Sons' 
Co.  V.  Humboldt  Elec.  Lights  etc, 
Co.,  112  Cal.  288,  44  Pac.  568 

Iowa. — Heaton  v.  Horr,  42  Iowa 
187. 

Kentucky. — Hightower  v.  Bai- 
ley, 108  Ky.  198,  56  S.  W.  147,  49 
L.  R.  A.  255. 

Louisiana. — Woodard  v.  Ameri- 
can Exposition  R.  Co.,  39  La.  Ann. 
566,  2  So.  413. 

Minnesota.  —  Pittsburg  Plate 
Glass  Co.  V.  Sisters  of  the  Sor- 
rowful Mother,  83  Minn.  29,  85 
N.  W.  829;  Forman  v.  St.  Ger- 
main, 81  Minn.  26,  83  N.  W.  438; 
Merriman  v.  Jones,  43  Minn.  29, 
44  N.  W.  526. 

Missouri. — Hause  v.  Thompson, 
36  Mo.  450. 

Oregon. — Fisher  v.  Tomlinson, 
40  Ore.  Ill,  60  Pac.  390,  66  Pac. 
696. 


§59] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO   LIEN. 


154 


ao  contract  made  to  authorize  the  work.-'''  The  materials 
furnished  must  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  lien.-'^  If  similar 
material  went  into  the  building  it  will  be  presumed  that  it  was 
purchased  for  that  purpose.^s  Sometimes  where  the  parties 
may  not  strictly  come  within  the  statute,  yet  if  a  court  of 
equity  acquires  jurisdiction  of  the  fund  it  will  distribute  it 
equitably  to  all  who  are  entitled  thereto.^^ 

§  59.  Subcontractor's  lien  on  fund — Ohio  statute. — Section 
3193  of  the  Revised  statutes  of  Ohio  provides  that  any  sub- 
contractor, material  man,  laborer  or  mechanic,  who  has  per- 
formed labor  or  furnished  material,  fuel  or  machinery,  who  is 
performing  labor,  or  furnishing  material,  fuel,  or  machinery,  or 
who  is  about  to  perform  labor,  or  furnish  material,  fuel  or  machin- 


Pennsylvania. — Duff  v.  Hoffman. 
63  Pa.  St.  191;  Steinmetz  v.  Bou- 
dinot,  3  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  541.  1 
Hill's  Ann.  Codes  &  St.  Wash. 
1663,  giving  a  lien  to  one  who 
furnishes  materials  "at  the  in- 
stance of  the  owner"  of  the  build- 
ing or  his  agent,  and  making  a 
contractor  having  charge  of  the 
construction  or  repair  of  the 
building  the  owner's  agent  for 
this  purpose  does  not  contem- 
plate a  lien  in  favor  of  one  who 
sells  materials  to  one  who  is  un- 
der contract  to  furnish  such  ma- 
terials to  the  owner.  Pacific 
Rolling-Mills  Co.  v.  James  Street 
Const.  Co.,  68  Fed.  966,  16  C.  C. 
A.  68,  29  U.  S.  App.  698. 

26  Stout  V.  McLachlin,  38  Kan. 
120,  15   Pac.  902. 

27  Where  there  are  two  cor- 
porations doing  substantially  one 
thing  and  carrying  out  substan- 
tially one  set  of  contracts,  one 
of  them  attending  to  the  finan- 
cial   part    and    the    other    to    the 


manufacturing,  and  one  being  vir- 
tually at  all  times  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  other,  there  is  no  prin- 
ciple by  which  one  can  assert  a 
mechanic's  lien  against  the  other. 
Andrews,  etc.,  Iron  Co.  v.  Isaac 
D.  Smead  Heating,  etc.,  Co.,  7 
Ohio  (N.  P.)  439,  5  Ohio  (S.  &  C. 
P.)  Dec.  292. 

28  Frudden  Lumber  Co.  v.  Kin- 
nan,   117   Iowa   93,   90   N.   W.   515. 

29  The  mechanic  or  workman 
performing  labor,  or  party  fur- 
nishing materials,  for  a  subcon- 
tractor, is  not  entitled  under  the 
statute  to  any  lien,  for  the  lien 
given  does  not  extend  further  than 
to  the  subcontractor.  But,  where 
a  court  of  equity  acquires  juris- 
diction of  the  fund  due  a  sub- 
contractor on  a  bill  of  interplead- 
er, in  which  the  persons  perform- 
ing labor  or  furnishing  materials 
for  the  subcontractor  are  made 
parties,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  court 
to  adjust  the  equities  of  all  par- 
ties   interested    in    the    fund,    as 


155  sub-contractor's  lien — ohio.  [§  59 

ery  for  the  construction,  alteration,  removal,  or  repair  of  any  prop- 
erty, appurtenance  or  structure,  as  described  in  sections  three 
thousand  one  hundred  and  eighty-four^  and  three  thousand  one 
hundred  and  eighty-six,^  or  for  the  construction,  improvement 
or  repair  of  any  turnpike,  road  improvement,  sewer,  street  or 
other  public  improvement,  or  public  building  provided  for  in 
a  contract  between  the  owner,  or  any  board,  officer  or  public 
authority  and  a  principal  contractor,  and  under  a  contract  be- 
tween such  subcontractor,  material  man,  laborer  or  mechanic 
and  a  principal  contractor  or  subcontractor,  may  at  the  time 
of  beginning  to  perform  such  labor  or  furnish  such  material, 
fuel  or  machinery,  or  at  any  time  thereafter,  not  to  exceed  four 
months  from  the  performance  of  such  labor  or  the  delivery  of 
such  machinery,  fuel  or  material,  file  with  the  owner,  board  or 
officer,  or  the  authorized  clerk  or  agent  thereof,  a  sworn  and 
itemized  statement  of  the  amount  and  value  of  such  labor  per- 
formed, and  to  be  performed,  material,  fuel  or  machinery  fur- 
nished, containing  a  description  of  any  promissory  note  or  notes 
that  may  have  been  given  by  the  principal  contractor  or  sub- 
contractor on  account  of  said  labor,  machinery  or  material,  or 
any  part  thereof,  with  all  credits  and  set-offs  therein.^  Under 
this  section,  the  subcontractor's  lien  may  easily  be  said  to  be 
a  method  of  fixing  a  personal  liability  on  the  owner,  for  work 
performed  on  a  structure  belonging  to  him.  When  its  pro- 
visions are  complied  with,  the  subcontractor,  or  material  man, 
furnishing  material,  become  subrogated  to  the  rights  of  the 
principal  contractor  as  to  whatever  may  be  due  or  owing  from 
the  owner  to  him,  under  their  contract.  It  follows  in  its  gen- 
eral principles  what  is  known  as  the  New  York  System. 

§  60.  Subcontractor's  lien — Ohio  statute — Who  may  acquire 
— Character  of  structure. — The  statute  would  seem  to  include 
all  persons  performing  labor  for  another  person  having  a  con- 

thej'  have  an   equitable  claim  on  i  See   §  44. 

the  fund.     Newhall  v.  Kasten,  70  2  See   §  44. 

111.   156.  3  99  Ohio  Laws  500. 


§61]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO  LIEN.  156 

tract  with  the  owner.  The  statute  specifically  says  that  sub- 
contractors, material  men,  laborers  and  mechanics,  shall  be 
entitled  to  take  out  the  lien.  A  subcontractor  of  a  subcon- 
tractor may  so  far  as  his  ow'n  individual  claim  is  concerned, 
be  included,  but  a  mechanic  or  material  man  furnishing  labor 
to  a  subcontractor  of  a  subcontractor  is  not  included.  The 
statute  specifically  states  that  the  kind  of  structure  for  which 
a  lien  may  be  claimed  on  the  fund,  is  that  stated  in  Sections 
3184  and  3186.^  And  in  addition  it  makes  provision  for  with- 
holding of  funds  where  the  structure  is  of  a  public  character. 
In  that  respect  it  goes  beyond  the  rights  of  a  principal  con- 
tractor. 

§  61.  Subcontractor's  lien — Ohio  Statute — Character  of 
•work — Contract. — The  kind  of  work  for  which  subcontractors 
and  material  men  are  given  a  lien  is  of  the  same  character  as 
that  named  in  the  section  relating  to  principal  contractors, 
and  what  is  heretofore  said  as  to  that  section  will  apply  here.^ 
It  is  not  thought  that  a  material  man  seeking  to  enforce  his 
lien  as  a  subcontractor  against  a  fund  due  the  principal  con- 
tractor will  be  required  to  show  that  his  material  actually 
went  into  the  building.  There  might  be  a  case  between  two 
material  men  where  its  actual  use  in  the  building  would 
need  to  be  shown.  In  all  cases,  where  a  subcontractor,  ma- 
terial man  or  laborer  working  under  such  subcontractor  or 
principal  contractor  is  allowed  to  enforce  a  right  upon  a  fund 
that  may  be  payable  for  the  improvement,  there  must  exist 
two  contracts.  There  must  be  a  contract  betw^een  the  owner 
of  the  property  and  the  principal  contractor.  This  is  necessary 
before  the  lien  on  the  fund  is  had.  Then  there  must  also  be  a 
contract  between  the  principal  contractor  and  the  subcon- 
tractor. If  either  one  of  these  does  not  exist,  the  benefits  of 
the  statute  can  not  be  claimed.  This  contract  may  be  express 
or  implied.*^ 

4  See  §  44.  ^  Dunn  v.   Rankin,   27   Ohio    St. 

5  See  §  44.  132. 


157  sub-contractor's  lien — ohio  procedure,  [§  62 

§  62.     Subcontractor's    lien — Ohio    statute — Procedure. — In 

order  to  secure  a  claim  the  mechanic  must  file  a  sworn,  item- 
ized statement  with  the  owner  within  four  months  from  the 
performance  of  such  labor  or  delivery  of  such  machinery. 
As  to  the  time  when  this  period  begins,  the  same  rules  apply 
as  in  the  taking  out  of  a  lien  by  a  principal  contractor.  There 
is,  however,  this  marked  difference ;  the  principal  contractor 
can  only  perfect  his  lien  after  the  work  has  been  done  or  the 
materials  furnished.  The  subcontractor  may  secure  himself 
by  filing  the  claim,  at  the  beginning  of  the  performance  of  his 
labor,  or  when  the  first  item  of  the  material  is  furnished.  And 
it  will  be  in  time  if  filed  within  four  months  from  the  time 
that  the  last  work  was  performed  or  the  last  item  of  materials 
furnished.  There  must  be  an  actual  service  made  on  the 
owner.  The  fact  that  the  owner  is  absent  or  has  absconded 
or  is  inaccessible  will  not  excuse  a  failure  to  serve. '^  The  state- 
ment must  be  filed  with  the  person  designated  by  the  statute, 
that  is,  the  owner,  board  or  officer  or  authorized  clerk,  or  agent. 
By  officer  or  authorized  agent,  or  clerk,  is  meant  the  officer, 
agent  or  clerk  of  the  owner,  board,  or  corporation  having  the 
work  done  or  materials  furnished,  who  has  control  of  the  im- 
provement, and  through  whom  payments  are  made  for  the 
work  or  materials  thereon,  or  upon  such  person  upon  whom 
the  duty  devolves  to  see  that  the  proper  persons  are  paid,  for 
their  work  or  material  furnished,  for  the  proposed  improve- 
ment. Until  the  statement  is  actually  delivered  to  and  re- 
ceived by  the  designated  person,  it  cannot  be  said  to  be  filed 
with  him.  It  is  immaterial  who  delivers  the  statement.  The 
claimant  does  not  have  to  do  it  personally,  but  it  is  important 
to  preserve  evidence  of  the  time  of  delivery  of  this  statement. 
If  not  filed  within   the  required  time   the   subcontractor  can 


"  McCune  v.  Snyder,  9  Ohio  Cir.       lien  dates  from  tlie  time  of  deliv- 
Dec.  572.  18  Ohio  C.  C.  24.     The      ery  to  owner.     Copeland  v.  Man- 
ton,  22  Ohio  St.  398. 


§  63]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN.  158 

claim  no  priority.^  The  language  in  the  section,  relating  to 
subcontractors,  is  very  similar  to  that  contained  in  the  section 
relating  to  principal  contractors,  and  much  that  was  said 
thereunder,  is  applicable  here.^  The  account  should  be  itemized 
so  as  to  show  the  labor  or  material,  the  price  of  which  is  sought 
to  be  made  subject  to  the  lien.  The  statute  should  be  sub- 
stantially follow^ed,  and  the  statement  would  not  be  held  to  be 
invalid,  if  the  facts  were  stated,  though  in  a  crude  way.^^ 

§  63.  Subcontractor's  lien — Ohio  statute — form  of  lien 
statement. — A  lien  statement  after  the  following  form  will  sat- 
isfy the  requirements  of  the  statute : 

Springfield,  Ohio,  ,  19.  . 

C.    D. — Dear   Sir:     You    are    hereby   notified    that    in    pur- 
suance of  a  written  contract  entered  into  between  A  B  and 

myself,  on  the day  of ,  19. ...,  a  copy 

of  which  is  as  follows,  towit :  (Here  copy  contract;  or  if  not 
in  writing,  then  so  state,  and  give  substance,  stating  amount 
and  value  and  items  furnished,  or  to  be  furnished,  with 
amounts  and  times  of  payments.)  I  have  furnished  (or  am 
about  to  furnish)  the  materials  and  labor  therein  provided  for, 
an  itemized  statement  of  the  amount  and  value  of  which  is 
hereto  attached,  marked  exhibit  "A"  and  made  a  part  hereof, 
in  and  towards  the  construction  of  the  building  described, 
and  contracted  for  between  yourself  and  the  said  A  B  as  prin- 
cipal contractors,  as  per  your  written  contract  with  him  of  the 

day  of 19.  ...,  a  copy  of  which  you 

have,  to  which  reference  is  here  made,  (or  if  not  in  writing, 
then  so  state,  and  give  substance)  on  the  premises  owned  by 

you,  situate  in  the  County  of   ,  State  of  Ohio, 

and  described  as  follows ;  (Here  describe  premises  on  which 
building  is  to  be  erected,  or  abutting  property,  if  for  street 
improvement.) 

8  Tollheis  v.   James,   7   Ohio  C.  lo  Bender  v.  Stettinius,  19  Ohio 

C.  386,  4  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  646.  L.   Bull.   163,  10   Ohio   Dec.    (Re.) 

0  See  §  44.  186. 


159  PERFORMANCE  OF  PRINCIPAL  CONTRACT.  [§  64 

The  following  promissory  notes  have  been  given  by  said 
A.  B.,  principal  contractor  (or  sub-contractor  according  to  the 
fact)  as  aforesaid  on  account  of  said  labor,  machinery,  or  ma- 
terial, or  any  part  thereof  with  all  credits  and  set-ofifs  thereon, 
towit  ■  ("Here  describe  same.) 

Said  E.  F.  claims  a  lien  on  all  payments,  due  or  to  become 
due  A.  B.  from  yourself  under  said  contract,  in  accordance 
with  Section  3193,  R.  S. 

(Signed)     E.  F, 

The  State  of  Ohio,  Clark  County,  ss. 

E.  F.  (agent  or  attorn'ey)  being  duly  sworn  according  to 
law,  deposes  and  says,  that  the  statement  of  the  foregoing 
notice  and  the  exhibit  therein  referred  to  and  made  a  part 
thereof,  are  true  in  substance  and  in  fact.  E.  F. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  and  in  my  presence,  this 

day  of A.  D.  19  .... 

Exhibit  "A :" 

A.  B.     In  account  with Dr. 

To  item. 

§  64.  Performance  of  principal  contract  as  affecting  those 
not  under  direct  contract  with  the  owner. — Much  that  was  said 
in  a  previous  section,^  is  applicable  here,  and  while  a  subcon- 
tractor is  bound  by  the  terms  of  the  original  contract  he  is 
not  afifected  by  changes  made  therein  afterwards,  unless  he 
has  assented  thereto.^  And  the  fact  that  the  owner  permitted 
the  contractor  to  get  some  material  on  the  owner's  credit,  is 


1  See   §§  49-52.  Co.   v.   Hunn,    126   Ga.   615,   55    S. 

2  California.— Shaver     v.     Mur-  E.  957. 

dock,  36  Cal.  293.  Illinois.  —  Miller    v.    Calumet 

Georgia.— Cambridge    Tile    Mfg.  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.,  121  111.  App. 

Co.    V.    Germania    Bank,    128    Ga.  56. 

178,  57  S.  E.  311;  General  Supply  Kansas. — Nixon  v.  Cydon  Lodge 


64] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO   LIEN. 


160 


not  sufificient  from  which  authority  may  be  implied  for  the 
purchase  of  other  materials.^  But  if  the  owner  assents  to  a 
subcontractor's  contract,  even  though  such  contract  is  not 
within  the  terms  of  the  original  contract,  the  owner  is  estopped 
from  denying  the  right  of  the  subcontractor.*  If  the  stat- 
ute requires  the  owner  to  do  something  to  escape  liability  and 
he  fails,  he  will  likewise  be  estopped  from  denying  the  sub- 
contractor's right.5  As  was  noticed  in  a  previous  section^ 
the  doctrine  of  the  entirety  of  contracts  resulted  in  so  much 
hardship  that  in  the  case  of  mechanics'  liens  it  has  been  re- 
laxed, and  while  a  few  decisions  maintain  that  the  contract  is 
entire,  and  that  if  the  contractor  abandons  the  contract  before 
its  performance  the  subcontractor  has  no  lien,"^  the  general 
doctrine  is  that  such  action  on  the  part  of  the  contractor  will 
not  defeat  the  subcontractor's  right,^  and  that  the  subcon- 
tractor will  be  entitled  to  a  lien  for  the  reasonable  value  of 
the  materials  and  work,  after  deducting  any  claims  or  dam- 
ages  for   non-performance   of  contract  by   the   principal  con- 


No.   5,'   56    Kan.    298,   43   Pac.   236. 

Louisiana. — Girarthy  v.  Camp- 
bell, 6  Rob.   (La.)  378. 

Maryland — Greenway  v.  Tur- 
ner, 4  Md.  296. 

Jfew  York. — Jenks  v.  Brown,  66 
N.  Y.  629. 

Pennsylvania. — Smith  v.  Levick, 
153  Pa.  St.  522,  26  Atl.  97,  32  W. 
N.  C.    (Pa.)    79. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  :Me- 
chanics'  Lien  §  110. 

3  Sunset  Brick  &  Tile  Co.  v. 
Stratton  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  53  S. 
W.  703. 

■i  Wambold  v.  Gehring,  109  Wis. 
122,  85  N.  W.  117;  Rosenbaum  v. 
Carlisle,  78  Miss.  882,  29  So.  517. 

5  Buckley  v.  Hann,  68  N.  J.  L. 
624,  54  Atl.  825. 

6  See  §§49,  65. 


'  >'ew  York. — Lemieux  v.  Eng- 
lish, 19  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  545,  43  N. 
Y.  Supp.  1066;  Smith  v.  Shelter- 
ing Arms,  89  Hun  (N.  Y.)  70,  35 
N.  Y.  Supp.  62;  Cunningham  v. 
Jones,  3  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  650, 
4  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  433;  Linn  v. 
O'Hara,  2  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  560, 

I  Abb.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   360. 
'Wisconsin. — Malbon    v.    Birney, 

II  Wis.  107  (112).  When  the 
contract  specifies  that  the  work 
is  to  be  done  in  a  certain  man- 
ner, and  paid  for  when  the  work 
is  completed,  and  it  is  not  done, 
no  recovery  can  be  had.  Brydon 
V.  Lutes,  9  Manitoba  463. 

s  Rockwood  V.  Walcott,  85 
:\Iass.  (3  Allen)  458.  Owner's 
fault.  Drake  v.  O'Donnell,  49 
How.    Pr.    (N.   Y.)    25;    Wright  v. 


161 


PERFORMANCE  OF   PRINCIPAL   CONTRACT. 


64 


tractor.^  From  this  amount  there  should  also  be  deducted 
payments  rightfully  made  to  the  principal  contractor.!*^  Under 
this  rule  if  an  instalment  is  due  before  the  contract  is  aband- 
oned, it  has  been  held  that  the  subcontractors  are  entitled  to 
a  lien  on  such  instalment.!^  Unless  changes  have  been  made 
and  assented  to,  or  are  within  the  knowledge  of  the  subcon- 
tractor, the  work  performed  by  the  principal  contractor  must 


Roberts,  43  Hun  (N.  Y.)  413; 
Cook  V.  Murphy,  150  Pa.  St.  41, 
24  Atl.  630,  30  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.) 
335. 

9  McDonald  v.  Hayes,  132  Cal. 
490,  64  Pac.  850;  Jarvis  v.  State 
Bank,  22  Colo.  309,  45  Pac.  505, 
55  Am.  St.  129.  Where  the  own- 
er wrongfully  pays  the  contractor 
in  violation  of  Kurd's  Rev.  St. 
1899,  p.  1113,  §33,  providing  that 
no  payment  to  the  contractor 
shall  be  regarded  as  rightfully 
made,  as  against  subcontractors, 
if  made  without  enforcing  the 
powers  conferred  by  sections  5 
and  23,  providing  means  by  which 
the  owner  can  ascertain  the  exist- 
ence and  extent  of  subcontractors' 
claims,  the  fact  that  the  con- 
tractor failed  to  perform  a  part 
of  the  work  will  not  defeat  the 
subcontractors'  liens,  when  the 
contract  price,  after  deducting 
the  value  of  the  work  undone, 
exceeds  the  amount  due  the  sub- 
contractors. Keeley  Brewing  Co. 
V.  Neubauer  Decorating  Co.,  194 
111.  580,  62  N.  E.  923. 

See  also  — 

Arkansas. — Long  v.  Abeles,  77 
Ark.  156,  93  S.  W.  67. 

Illinois. — Morehouse  v.  Mould- 
iny,  74  111.  322;  Miller  v.  Calumet 
Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.,  Ill  111.  App. 

11 


56;  Marski  v.  Simmerling,  46  111. 
App.  531. 

jVew  York. — Person  v.  Stoll,  174 
N.  Y.  548,  67  N.  E.  1089;  Wright 
V.  Roberts,  43  Hun  (N.  Y.)  413. 

Ohio. — Sturm  v.  Ritz,  7  Ohio 
Dec.  (Re.)  135,  1  Wkly.  L.  Bull. 
150. 

Texas.— Pall  v.  Nichols,  43  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  582,  97  S.  W.  145. 

10  Mantonya  v.  Reilly,  83  111. 
App.  275;  Maneely  v.  New  York, 
119  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  376,  105  N. 
Y.  Supp.  976;  Wright  v.  Schoha- 
rie Valley  R.  Co.,  116  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  542,  101  N.  Y.  Supp.  801; 
Schoharie  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Union 
Free  School  Dist.  No.  1,  112  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  542,  101  N.  Y.  Supp. 
801;  Long  v.  Abeles,  77  Ark.  156, 
93  S.  W.  67. 

iiHunnicutt  v.  Van  Hoose,  111 
Ga.  518,  36  S.  E.  669;  Conklin  v. 
Plant,  34  111.  App.  264;  St.  Paul's 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  v. 
Giraud,  15  La.  Ann.  124.  Where 
the  contract  for  building  a  house 
contains  a  provision  that  from 
time  to  time  payments  to  the 
amount  of  80  per  cent,  of  the 
value  of  the  work  done  may  be 
made,  and  that  the  remaining  20 
per  cent,  should  be  paid  when 
the  completed  work  was  accept- 
ed, and  the  contractor  abandoned 


§  64]  CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  LIEN.  162 

be  within  the  terms  of  the  original  contract.^^  jf  ^\^q  work 
is  abandoned  and  the  owner  finishes  the  building,  for  work 
or  labor  done  under  him  the  lien  will  exist  in  full,  while  for 
that  furnished  before  abandonment,  the  lien  will  only  be 
upon  the  portion  that  was  then  performed,  taking  into  consid- 
eration the  entire  contract  price. ^^ 

§  65.  Performance  of  principal  contract  as  affecting  sub- 
contractors— stipulations  in  contract. — Of  course  if  the  owner 
has  complied  with  the  law  and  his  contract  and  there  is  noth- 
ing due  the  contractor,  there  is  no  lien;  that  is,  if  under  the 
Pennsylvania  system  he  had  made  proper  stipulations  in  his 
contract,  or  under  the  New  York  system  he  had  made  pay- 
ments in  full,  before  notice,  the  subcontractor  will  not  be 
entitled  to  a  lien.^^  If  the  statute  provides  that  upon  a  princi- 
pal contractor's  abandonment  the  subcontractors  may  finish 
it,  and  they  do  not,  the  owner  can  and  may  deduct  the  cost  of 

the     work    before     completion,    a  Oregon. — Whittier     v.    Blakely, 

subcontractor  can  have  no  claim  13  Ore.  .546,  11  Pac.  305. 

on  the  20  per  cent,  of  the  value  i-  Houlahan  v.  Clark,  110  Wis. 

of  the  work  done  by  the  contract-  43,  85  N.  \V.  676;   Seeman  v.  Bie- 

or  before  quitting,  which  had  been  man,  108  Wis.  365,  84  N.  W.  490. 

retained  by  the  owner,  since  such  ^^  Delray   Lumber    Co.    v.    Keo- 

20    per    cent,    never    became    due  hane,  132  Mich.  17,  92  N.  W.  489; 

under  the  contract.     Hawkins  v.  Brainard  v.  Kings  County,  155  N. 

Burrell,  69  App.  Div.   (N.  Y.)   462,  Y.    538,    50    N.    E.    263;    House    v. 

74  N.  Y.  Supp.  1003.     See  also—  Schulze,  21  Tex.  Civ.  App.  243,  52 

Iowa.— Nancolas  v.  Hitaffer,  136  S.  W.  654. 

Iowa  841,  112  N.  W.  382,  12  L.  R.  i-*  Hunnicutt  v.   Van   Hoos,   111 

A.   (N.  S.)   864n.  Ga.  518,  36  S.  E.  669.     Last  pay- 

IVew  Jersey. — Beckhard   v.   Ru-  ment  forfeited  for  non-compliance, 

dolph,  68   N.   J.    Eq.    740,   63   Atl.  Preusser  v.  Florence,  51  How.  Pr. 

705.  (N.   Y.),  385,   4  Abb.   N.  Cas.    (N. 

New  York New     Jersey    Steel  Y.)  136;  Riter  v.  Houston  Oil  Re- 

&  Iron  Co.  v.  Robinson,  33  Misc.  fining  &c.  Co.,  19  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

(N.  Y.)    361,   68  N.  Y.  Supp.  577;  516,   48   S.   W.   758;    Breneman  v. 

Sheffield   v.   Loeffler,   50   Hun    (N.  Beaumont    Lumber    Co.,    12    Tex. 

Y.)    606,  3  N.  Y.  Supp.   150.  Civ.  App.  517,  34  S.  W.  198. 


163 


PERFORMANCE  OF   PRINCIPAL   CONTRACT. 


[§65 


the  same  from  the  principal  contract. ^^  In  some  cases,  where 
the  statute  makes  the  owner  directly  responsible,  and  the  sub- 
contractor has  actually  furnished  work  and  material,  it  is  held 
that  an  abandonment  does  not  afTect  the  subcontractor's 
right. ^^  Where  one  contract  is  made  for  separate  buildings 
and  subcontracts  are  let  on  the  separate  buildings,  as  to  the 
subcontractors,  each  contract  would  be  considered  a  separate 
contract,  and  rights  will  be  determined  accordingly.^'^  If 
the  owner  is  not  under  legal  obligation  to  retain  payments 
either  by  stipulations  in  his  contract,  or  failure  to  comply  with 
the  statutory  requirements  of  notice, ^^  and  pays  the  contractor 
all  that  is  due  him  up  to  the  time  of  the  abandonment,  the  sub- 
contractors have  no  lien,i^  as  the  rights  of  subcontractors  or 
material  men  are  not  greater  than  the  person  who  employs 


15  Furnished  by  another.  Burr 
V.  Mazer,  2  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  436,  39 
W.  N.  C.  Pa.  157;  Simonton  v. 
Cicero  Lumber  Co.,  108  III.  App. 
481. 

16  Shenandoah  Valley  R.  Co.  v. 
Miller,  80  Va.  821;  Red  River  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Children  of  Israel,  7  N. 
Dak.  46,  73  N.  W.  203. 

1'  White  V.  Livingston,  174  N.  Y. 
538,  66  N.  E.  1118.  Where  a  con- 
tractor agrees  to  build  several 
buildings,  with  a  separate  price 
and  a  different  day  of  comple- 
tion for  each,  it  is  a  severable  con- 
tract; and  if  the  owner  under  the 
contract,  after  the  abandonment 
by  the  contractor,  completes  the 
work,  and  the  cost  of  completing 
any  one  or  more  of  the  buildings 
was  less  than  the  amount  the  con- 
tractor would  have  been  entitled 
to  if  he  had  completed  it,  the  own- 
er is  liable  to  the  material  men 
who  have  filed  liens  for  the  dif- 
ference.    White  V.  Livingston,  69 


App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  361,  75  N.  Y. 
Supp.  466;  Timmons  v.  Casey,  19 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  476,  47  S.  W.  805. 

IS  See  §§  56,  61. 

i^Californi  a, —  Wiggins  v. 
Bridge,  70  Cal.  437,  11  Pac.  754; 
Blythe  v.  Poultney,  31  Cal.  233; 
Henley  v.  Wadsworth,  38  Cal.  356. 

Illinois.— Schultz  v.  Hay,  62  111. 
157. 

New  York. — Kelly  v.  Blooming- 
dale,  139  N.  Y.  343,  34  N.  E.  919; 
McChesney  v.  Syracuse,  75  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  503,  27  N.  Y.  Supp.  508; 
Beecher  v.  Schuback,  4  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  54,  23  N.  Y.  Supp.  604; 
Watson  V.  Cone,  66  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
632,  21  N.  Y.  Supp.  224;  McDou- 
gall  V.  Nast,  5  N.  Y.  St.  144;  Allen 
v.  Carman,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.) 
692;  Weisemair  v.  Buffalo,  57  Hun 
(N.  Y.)   48,  10  N.  Y.  Supp.  569. 

Texas. — Dudley  v.  Jones,  77  Tex. 
69,  14  S.  W.  335,  25  S.  W.  994; 
Ricker  v.  Schadt,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
460,  23  S.  W.  907. 


§65] 


CONDITIONS   GIVING   RIGHT   TO   LIEN. 


164 


them.^'J  If  there  is  a  stipulation  in  the  original  contract  that 
the  owner  may,  upon  the  contractor's  default,  proceed  and 
finish  the  work,  and  the  owner  so  proceeds,  and  it  requires  all 
the  balance  of  the  contract  price  to  finish  the  same,  the  sub- 
contractor has  no  lien  right.^i  However,  any  balance  left  is 
subject  to  the  subcontractor's  lien  rights.^^  This  is  true  even 
though  there  was  nothing  due  the  contractor  at  the  time  of  the 
abandonment. 23  It  has  been  held  under  some  statutes  that 
if  there  was  an  instalment  due  and  unpaid  at  the  time  of  the 
abandonment,  the  subcontractor  would  have  a  lien  on  that 
instalment,  even  though  nothing  might  be  due  after  the  com- 
pletion of  the  job.2^  But  if  there  is  no  stipulation  that  the 
owner  may  finish,  and  the  contractor  has  been  paid  all  that 
was  due  him  at  the  time  of  the  abandonment,  and  the  owner 
finishes,  there  will  be  no  lien  to  a  subcontractor,  even  if 
finished  at  a  less  cost  than  the  contract  price.^^  Before  a  sub- 
contractor is  entitled  to  assert  his  lien  right,  unless  in  some 
way  prevented  by  the  fault  of  the  owner,  he  must  show  that 
he  has  substantially  performed  the  part  of  the  work  allotted  to  him 
by  the  contractor  in  accordance  with  the  principal  contract.^^ 


20  Jewell  V.  Paron,  94  Mich.  Sa 
53  N.  W.  951. 

21  White  V.  Livingston,  174  N.  Y. 
538,  66  N.  E.  1118;  Ferguson  v. 
Burk,  4  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  760; 
Blakeslee  v.  Fisher,  66  Hun  (N. 
Y.  261,  21  N.  Y.  Supp.  217. 

22  Ogden  V.  Alexander,  140  N.  Y. 
356,  35  N.  E.  638;  Van  Clief  v. 
Van  Vechten,  130  N.  Y.  571,  29  N. 
E.  1017;  Schmohl  v.  O'Brien,  25 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  699,  55  N.  Y.  Supp. 
629. 

23  Campbell  v.  Coon,  149  N.  Y. 
556,  44  N.  E.  300,  38  L.  R.  A.  410n; 
Van  Clief  v.  Van  Vechten,  130  N. 
Y.  571,  29  N.  E.  1017. 

24  Foshay  v.  Robinson,  137  N. 
Y.  134,  32  N.  E.  1041. 


25  Ogden  V.  Alexander,  140  N. 
Y.  356,  35  N.  E.  638;  Hollister  v. 
Mott,  132  N.  Y.  18,  29  N.  E.  1103; 
Larkin  v.  McMullin,  120  N.  Y. 
206,  24  N.  E.  447,  Wheeler  v. 
Scofield,  67  N.  Y.  311. 

26  Mantonya  v.  Reilly,  184  111. 
183,  56  N.  E.  425;  Wisconsin  Red 
Pressed  Brick  Co.  v.  Hood,  67 
Minn.  329,  69  N.  W.  1091,  64  Am. 
St.  418.  The  fact  that  the  main 
icontractor's  construction  of  a  con- 
tract with  a  subcontractor  was  er- 
roneous in  one  detail  did  not  jus- 
tify the  subcontractor  in  failing  to 
perform  other  work  concededly 
within  the  contract.  MacKnight 
Flintic  Stone  Co.  v.  New  York,  176 
N.  Y.  586,  68  N.  E.  1119.     See  also 


165 


PERSONS    NOT    UNDER   DIRECT    CONTRACT. 


[§66 


Slight  deviations,^^  or  defects  in  the  architecture,28  or  the 
fact  that  the  contract  between  the  contractor  and  sub- 
contractor has  not  been  followed  in  full,  will  not  prevent  the 
subcontractor's  lien  for  the  materials  furnished  or  labor  per- 
formed.^^  It  will  be  observed  from  statements  heretofore 
made  that  the  fact  that  the  contractor  has  abandoned  the  work 
and  the  owner  finishes  it,  will  not  necessarily  defeat  the  sub- 
contractor's right.2'^  If  a  third  party  assumes  to  do  the  work 
by  consent  of  all  parties  concerned  he  will  have  the  rights  of 
the  persons  whose  place  he  has  taken.^^ 

§  66.  Matters  affecting  rights  of  those  not  under  direct  con- 
tract with  the  owner. — There  being  no  privity  of  contract  be- 
tween the  subcontractor  and  the  principal  owner  and  the  right 
to  the  lien  depending  solel}^  upon  statute,  it  follows  that  a  sub- 
contractor cannot  claim  a  lien  unless  he  shows  a  compliance 
with  the   statute.^     Of  course  if  the  subcontractor  has  been 


Mull  V.  Jones,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  359, 
45  N.  Y.  St.  643;  Mahon  v.  Guil- 
foyle,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  93,  44  N.  Y. 
St.  879;  Rand  v.  Leeds,  2  Phila. 
(Pa.)  160.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  12. 

27  Toan  V.  Russell,  111  111.  App. 
629;    Welch  v.   Sherer,   93  111.   64. 

28Mantonya  v.  Reilly,  184  111. 
183,  56  N.  E.  425;  Welch  v.  Sherer, 
93  111.  64. 

29  Newcomer  v.  Hutchings,  96 
Ind.  119. 

30  Bates  v.  Trustees  of  Masonic 
Hall  &  Asylum  Fund,  7  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)   609,  27  N.  Y.  Supp.  951. 

31  Moore  v.  Erickson,  158  Mass. 
71,  32  N.  E.  1031;  Brainard  v. 
Kings  County,  84  Hun  (N.  Y.)  290, 
32  N.  Y.  Supp.  311;  Security  Nat. 
Bank  v.  St.  Croix  Power  Co.,  117 
Wis.  211,  94  N.  W.  74;  Murphy  v. 
Watertown,  99  N.  Y.  Supp.  6,  112 
App.    Div.    (N.   Y.)    670. 


1  Stevens  v.  Ogden,  130  N.  Y. 
182,  29  N.  E.  229;  McCorkle  v. 
Hermann,  117  N.  Y.  297,  22  N.  E. 
948;  Mahoney  v.  Mc Walters,  3 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  248,  38  N.  Y. 
Supp.  256;  Hall  v.  Baldwin,  45  N. 
J.  Eq.  858,  18  Atl.  976.  A  per- 
son to  be  entitled  to  the  remedy 
given  by  section  3  of  the  me- 
chanic's lien  law  must  (1)  be  a 
creditor  of  the  contractor,  whose 
debt  was  contracted  for  work  done 
on  the  building  erected  by  the 
contractor  for  the  owner,  or  for 
material  furnished  for  the  build- 
ing; (2)  his  debt  must  be  due; 
(3)  there  must  be  a  demand,  as 
the  creditor  is  entitled  to  be  paid 
at  once;  and  (4)  he  must  give 
notice  in  writing  to  the  owner 
of  the  contractor's  refusal  to  pay, 
and  of  the  amount  by  him  demand- 
ed. Kirtland  v.  Moore,  40  N.  J. 
Eq.   106,   2  Atl.    269;    Stephens  v. 


§66] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO  LIEN. 


166 


paid  in  full  his  rights  are  extinguished.^  And  even  if  not  paid 
in  full,  he  can  not  acquire  a  lien  on  a  claim  for  unliquidated 
damages.^  He  may  lose  his  claim  by  waiver.  Where  his 
right  to  the  fund  is  fixed  by  giving  notice,  so  much  of  the 
amount  due  or  becoming  due  to  the  contractor  as  will  equal 
the  claim  of  the  subcontractor,  becomes  transferred  to  him.^ 
And  he  would  have  an  equitable  claim  on  the  fund  even  though 
he  might  not  enforce  it  on  the  building.^  The  fact  that  the 
contractor  ceases  work,  by  fault  of  the  owner,^  or  the  property 
goes  into  the  hands  of  a  receiver,  will  not  afTect  the  right  of 
the  subcontractor  to  the  amount  justly  due  on  the  principal 
contract."     If  a  payment  is  to  be  made  the  contractor  in  land, 


United  Railroads  Stock  Yard  Co., 
29  Ohio  St.  227. 

2  Wood  V.  Donaldson,  17  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  550;  Wood  v.  Atlantic  &c. 
R.  Co.,  131  N.  Car.  48,  42  S.  E.  462; 
Muller  V.  McLaughlin,  37  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  449,  84  S.  W.  687. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,  §  133. 

3  Miner  v.  Hoyt,  4  Hill  (N.  Y.) 
193;  Mayer  v.  Mutchler,  50  N.  J. 
L.  162,  13  Atl.  620. 

4  California, — Newport  Wharf  & 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Drew,  125  Cal.  585, 
58  Pac.  187;  Russ  Lumber  &  Mill 
Co.  V.  Roggenkamp  (Cal.),  35  Pac. 
643;  Bates  v.  Santa  Barbara  Coun- 
ty, 90  Cal.  543,  27  Pac.  438. 

Illinois.— Griffin  v.  Booth,  152 
111.  219,  38  N.  E.  551;  Culver  v. 
Fleming,  61  111.  498. 

Louisiana. — Jorda  v.  Gobet,  5 
La.  Ann.  431;  Allen  v.  Wills,  4  La. 
Ann.  97. 

'Neyv  Jersey. — Kreutz  v.  Cramer, 
64  N.  J.  Eq.  648,  54  Atl.  535;  Budd 
V.  School  Dist.  No.  4,  51  N.  J.  L. 
36,  16  Atl.  194;  Anderson  v.  Huff, 
49  N.  J.  Eq.  349,  23  Atl.  654. 


New  York. — Develin  v.  Mack,  2 
Daly  (N.  Y.)  94. 

Ohio. — Dunn  v.  Rankin,  27  Ohio 
St.  132;  McCullom  v.  Richardson, 
2  Handy   (Ohio)    274. 

West  Virginia, — Stout  v.  Golden, 
9  W.  Va.  231. 

5  California, —  Bates  v.  Santa 
Barbara  County,  90  Cal.  543,  27 
Pac.  438;  Weldon  v.  Superior 
Court  of  Los  Angeles  County,  138 
Cal.  427,  71  Pac.  502. 

Iowa. — Breneman  v.  Harvey,  70 
Iowa  479,  30  N.  W.  846. 

Kentuckj-. — Roe  v.  Scanlan,  98 
Ky.  24,  32  S.  W.  216,  17  Ky.  L. 
595. 

Public  buildings.  Quinlan  v. 
Russell,  94  N.  Y.  350;  Clark  v. 
Haggerty,  5  Ohio  C.  C.  235,  3  Ohio 
Cir.  Dec.   118. 

6  Graf  v.  Cunningham,  109  N.  Y. 
369,  16  N.  E.  551;  McKee  v.  Rapp, 
35  N.  Y.  Supp.  175,  69  N.  Y.  St. 
291. 

'  In  re  Christie  Mfg.  Co.,  15 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  588,  36  N.  Y.  Supp. 
923. 


167 


PERFORMANCE  OF  CONTRACT SUB-CONTRx\CTOR. 


[§66 


the  court  will  secure  the  subcontractor's  right  to  be  paid  from 
such  land.^  Where  all  parties  are  in  court,  a  court  of  equity 
will  protect  subcontractor's  claims  on  equitable  principles.^ 
Moneys  turned  over  to  a  third  person  by  the  owner  on  the 
order  of  the  contractor  may  amount  to  a  payment  to  the  con- 
tractor/*^ and  will  relieve  the  owner  from  liability  to  a  sub- 
contractor's lien.i^  This  will  be  true  where  the  owner  accepted 
an  order  before  he  was  served  with  proper  notice. ^^  Espe- 
cially is  this  true  as  to  the  amount  due  at  the  time  the  order  is  ac- 
cepted.^'"^  It  is  sometimes  held  to  cover  money  due  there- 
after.^"*    Failure  to  demand  payment  of  the  order  will  not  de- 


8  Anderson  v.  Huff,  49  N.  J.  Eq. 
349,  23  Atl.  654. 

9  Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  War- 
wick Elec.  Light  Mfg.  Co.,  6  Ohio 
Dec.  475,  4  Ohio  N.  P.  279.  There 
must  be  no  collusion.  Owen  v. 
Murry,  6  Ohio  Dec.  223,  4  Ohio  N. 
P.  151. 

10  White  V.  Livingston,  174  N.  Y. 
538,   66  N.  E.  1118. 

11  New  Jersey. — South  End  Imp. 
Co.  V.  Harden  (N.  J.  Eq.),  52  Atl 
1127;  Leary  v.  Lamont  (N.  J.  Eq.), 
42  Atl.  97;  Slingerland  v.  Binns, 
56  N.  J.  Eq.  413,  39  Atl.  712. 

New  York. — Bates  v.  Salt  Springs 
Nat.  Bank,  157  N.  Y.  322,  51  N.  E. 
1033;  Mechanics'  &c.,  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Winant,  123  N.  Y.  365,  25  N.  E.  262. 

Texas. — Harris  Co.  v.  Campbell, 
68  Tex.  22,  3  S.  W.  243,  2  Am.  St. 
467n. 

12  Indiana. — Raleigh  v.  Tosset- 
tel,  36  Ind.  295. 

Iowa. — Cutler  v.  McCormick,  48 
Iowa  406. 

New  Jersey. — Blauvelt  v.  Fuller, 
66  N.  J.  L.  46,  48  Atl.  538;  Foster 
V.  Rudderow  (N.  J.  L.),  3  Atl.  694. 

New  York. — Stevens  v.  Ogden, 
130  N.  Y.  182,  29  N.  E.  229;  Mayer 


V.  Killilea.  63  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
318,  71  N  Y.  Supp.  786. 

Ohio. — Copeland  v.  Manton,  22 
Ohio  St.  398;  Tollheis  v.  James,  7 
Ohio  C.  C.  386. 

An  accepted  order  is  a  payment 
that  will  protect  an  owner.  Jen- 
nings V.  Willis,  22  Ont.  439; 
House  V.  Schultz,  21  Tex.  Civ. 
App.   243,  52   S.   W.   654. 

13  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Perris  Ir- 
rigation Dist.,  107  Cal.  55,  40  Pac. 
45;  Bourget  v.  Donaldson,  83  Mich. 
478,  47  N.  W.  326. 

1^  An  assignment,  in  language 
operating  in  presenti,  of  money 
due  and  to  grow  due  from  a  third 
person,  effects  an  immediate  and 
present  transfer  to  the  assignee  of 
a  right  to  demand  and  receive  the 
money  assigned  without  notice  to 
the  debtor;  and  after  such  assign- 
ment the  debtor  no  longer  owes 
the  assignor,  but  does  owe  and 
will  owe  to  the  assignee  what  he 
would  otherwise  owe  to  the  as- 
signor. Board  of  Education  v.  Du- 
parquet,  50  N.  J.  Eq.  234,  24  Atl. 
922.  See  also  White  v.  Livingston, 
174  N.  Y.  538,  66  N.  E.  1118,  also 
69  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  361,  75  N.  Y. 


66] 


CONDITIONS   GIVING  RIGHT   TO   LIEN. 


168 


feat  its  priority.i^  According  to  some  courts  the  order  will 
take  priority  of  the  lien  if  presented  before  notice  of  the  lien  is 
served  though  not  accepted  until  thereafter.^*'  But  the  order 
must  be  given  in  good  faith/'^  and  must  be  an  assignment  of 
the  principal  debt.^^  It  must  be  based  upon  another  consider- 
ation than  a  pre-existing  indebtedness,^^  or  money  advanced. ^"^ 
In  such  cases  the  fact  that  the  owner  knows  that  subcontract- 
ors are  unpaid,  will  not  defeat  the  rights  of  the  assignee.^i 
Where  subcontractors  are  defeated  by  an  assignment  of  what 
is  due,  the  fact  that  the  contractor  has  given  bond  to  indem- 
nify the  owner's  agent  against  claims  of  subcontractors  will 
not  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the  subcontractor.^^  If  a  payment 
is  due  and  notice  is  not  given  as  required,  the  payment  may  be 
legally  assigned  and  a  subsequent  notice  will  not  affect  it.^^  If 
however,  the  principal  contractor  can  not  collect  the  claim  himself, 
then  he  can  not  make  an  assignment  of  it,  that  will  preclude 
subcontractors.^'*  A  person  completing  a  building,  abandoned 
by  a  contractor  is  usually  held  to  stand  in  the  shoes  of  the 


Supp.  466;  Frederick  v.  Goodman 
St.  Homestead  Assn.,  75  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  612,  29  N.  Y.  Supp.  1041;  Hon- 
dorf  V.  Atwater,  75  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
369,  27  N.  Y.  Supp.  447;  Young 
Stone  Dressing  Co.  v.  St.  James' 
Church,  61  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  489; 
Gates  V.  Haley,  1  Daly  (N.  Y.)  338. 

15  White  V.  Livingston,  174  N. 
Y.  538,  66  N.  E.  1118. 

16  Fell  V.  McManus  (N.  J.),  1  Atl. 
747;  Smith  v.  Sheltering  Arms, 
89  Hun  (N.  Y.)  70,  35  N.  Y.  Supp. 
62;  Newman  v.  Levy,  84  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  478,  32  N.  Y.  Supp.  557;  Stev- 
ens V.  Ogden,  130  N.  Y.  182,  29  N. 
E.  229. 

1"  English  V.  Warren,  65  N.  J. 
Eq.  30,  54  Atl.  860;  South  End 
Imp.  Co.  V.  Harden  (N.  J.  Eq.),  52 
Atl.  1127. 


18  South  End  Imp.  Co.  v.  Har- 
den (N.  J.  Eq.),  52  Atl.  1127;  Gass 
V.  Souther,  46  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
256,  61  N.  Y.  Supp.  305. 

19  Copeland  v.  Manton,  22  Ohio 
St.  398. 

20  Hamilton  v.  Stilwaugh,  11 
Ohio  C.  C.  182,  5  Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 
324. 

21  Hall  V.  Banks,  79  Wis.  229,  48 
N.  W.  385. 

22  Hall  V.  Banks,  79  Wis.  229, 
48  N.  W.  385;  Dorestan  v.  Krieg, 
66  Wis.  604,  29  N.  W.  576. 

23  Adams  v.  Wells,  64  N.  J.  Eq. 
211,  53  Atl.  610;  Lauer  v.  Dunn, 
115  N.  Y.  405,  22  N.  E.  270,  also  52 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  191,  5  N.  Y.  Supp. 
161. 

2-1  Jennings  v.  Wilier  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  32  S.  W.  24;  Texas  Builders' 


169 


SUB-CONTRACTOR  S  RIGHTS^   ETC. 


66 


contractor  under  the  principal  contract.^^  Of  course  if  the 
statute  forbids  an  assignment  of  the  money  due, an  assignment 
will  be  invalid.-*^  The  owner  rests  under  no  obligation  to  ac- 
cept orders  for  a  part  of  a  payment  due.-^  The  rights  of  the 
subcontractor  in  the  case  of  the  insolvency  of  the  principal 
contractor  are  the  same  whether  he  makes  an  assignment  for 
the  benefit  of  creditors  or  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  receiver.^^ 
The  mechanic's  claim  will  be  superior  to  that  of  a  general  cred- 
itor,-'^ and  can  be  enforced  for  what  was  furnished  up  to  the 
date  of  assignment,^"  even  if  the  assignment  is  made  before  the 
lien  claim  is  filed. "^  The  same  rules  apply  to  the  claims  of  con- 
tractors under  a  subcontractor.^^ 


Supply  Co.  V.  Nat.  Loan  &  Inv.  Co., 
22  Tex.  Civ.  App.  349,  54  S.  W. 
1059. 

25  Smith  V.  Lange,  81  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  192,  80  N.  Y.  Supp.  1078; 
Harley  v.  Mapes  Reeves  Const. 
Co.,  33  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  626,  68  N.  Y. 
Supp.  191;  Moore  v.  Dugan,  179 
Mass.  153,  60  N.  E.  488.  A  re- 
quirement in  a  building  contract 
that  a  certificate  from  the  clerk 
shall  be  required  that  no  liens  are 
unsatisfied  is  for  the  owner's  pro- 
tection, and  does  not  prevent  as- 
signments by  the  contractor.  Bates 
V.  Salt  Springs  Nat.  Bank,  157  N. 
Y.  322,  51  N.  E.  1033. 

26  Simpson  v.  New  Orleans,  109 
La.  897,  33  So.  912;  Franklin  bank 
V.  Cincinnati,  10  Ohio  Dec.  545. 

27  Miller  v.  Brigot,  8  La.  533. 

28  Pierce  v.  Cabot,  159  Mass.  202, 

34  N.  E.  362. 

29  John  P.  Kane  Co.  v.  Kinney, 

35  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  1,  71  N.  Y.  Supp. 
8. 

30  Mandeville  v.   Reed,   13   Abb. 


Pr.     (N.    Y.)     173;    Henderson    v. 
Sturgis,  1  Daly  (N.  Y.)  336. 

31  John  P.  Kane  Co.  v.  Kinney, 
35  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  1,  71  N.  Y.  Supp. 
S;  McMurray  v.  Hutcheson,  59 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  210;  Crist  v. 
Langhorst,  5  Ohio  Dec.  (Re.)  352, 
1  Wkly.  Law  Bull.  111.  If  paid 
before  assignment,  the  same  be- 
ing due,  and  before  notice,  there  is 
no  lien.  French  v.  Bauer,  16  Daly 
(N.  Y.)   309,  11  N.  Y.  Supp.  69. 

32  French  v.  Bauer,  134  N.  Y. 
548,  32  N.  E.  77,  20  L.  R.  A.  560n; 
Crane  v.  Genin,  60  N.  Y.  127;  Lum- 
bard  v.  Syracuse,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  55 
N.  Y.  491;  Hagan  v.  American 
Baptist  Home  Missionary  Soc,  14 
Daly  (N.  Y.)  131,  6  N.  Y.  St.  212; 
Lemieux  v.  English,  19  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  545,  43  N.  Y.  Supp.  1066.  If 
the  aggregate  of  claims  for  which 
liens  are  filed  exceeds  the  balance 
in  the  owner's  hands,  such  bal- 
ance should  be  distributed  pro 
rata,  and  if  the  owner  has  paid 
some  claims  he  should  only  be  al- 
lowed a  pro  rata  credit  therein. 
Pierce  v.  Plumb,  74  111.  325. 


67] 


CONDITIONS   GIVING   RIGHT   TO   LIEN. 


170 


§  67.  Payment  to  principal  contractor  as  affecting  those 
not  under  direct  contract  with  the  owner. — Unless  the  statute 
in  some  manner  directs  otherwise  the  owner  may  make  pay- 
ment to  the  principal,  in  any  method  and  at  any  time  that  he 
chooses,^  the  claim  of  the  subcontractor  not  extending  beyond 
the  indebtedness  of  the  owner  to  the  contractor.^  Such 
payments  must  be  made  in  good  faith  and  without  intent  to 
commit  a  fraud.^  The  payment,  however,  must  be  a  valid  one ; 
thus  an  agreement  to  pay  debts  of  the  contractor,  being  invalid 
under  the  statute  of  frauds  if  not  in  writing,  is  not  a  valid  pay- 


1  Califoruia. — Dunlop  v.  Ken- 
nedy   (Cal),   34   Pac.   92. 

Illiuois. — Simonton  v.  Cicero 
Lumber  Co.,  108  111.  App.  481. 

Louisiana. — Simpson  v.  New  Or- 
leans, 109  La.  897,  33  So.  912; 
Rousselot  V.  Kirwin,  8  La.  Ann. 
300. 

Texas.— Sunset  Brick  &  Tile  Co. 
V.  Stratton  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  53  S. 
W.  703. 

Ontario. — In  re  Sears  &  Woods, 
23  Ont.  474,  110  Manitoba  1487,  R. 
S.  1902,  ch.  110,  p.  1487. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Digest,  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,  §  115.    See  §  69. 

2  Colorado. — Sayre-Newton  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Union  Bank,  6  Colo.  App. 
541,  41  Pac.  844. 

District  of  Columbia. — Whelan 
V.  Young,  21  D.  C.  51. 

Florida, — Macfarlane  v.  South- 
ern Lumber  &c.,  Co.,  47  Fla.  271, 
36  So.  1029. 

Illinois. — Biggs  v.  Clapp,  74  111. 
335. 

New  York. — Robbins  v.  Arendt, 
148  N.  Y.  673,  43  N.  E.  165;  Ball, 
&c.,  Co.  V.  Clark,  &c.,  Co.,  31  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  356,  52  N.  Y.  Supp. 
443. 


North  Carolina. — Parsley  v.  Da- 
vid, 106  N.  Car.  225,  10  S.  E.  1028. 

3  Adamson  v.  Shaner,  3  Ind. 
App.  448,  29  N.  E.  944;  Martin  v. 
Morgan,  64  Iowa  270,  20  N.  W.  184; 
Wolf  V.  Mendelsohn,  87  N.  Y. 
Supp.  465.  Payments  made  to  the 
contractor  after  promises  by  the 
owner  that  he  would  make  no  fur- 
ther payments  without  notice  to 
the  subcontractor,  are  no  defense 
to  a  lien  subsequently  filed  by 
such  subcontractor.  Rope  v.  Hess, 
6  N.  Y.  St.  710.  See  also  McDou- 
gall  V.  Nast,  5  N.  Y.  St.  144;  Smith 
V.  Coe,  2  Hilt  (N.  Y.)  365;  Hofege- 
sang  V.  Meyer,  2  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N. 
Y.)  111.  The  fact  that  such  pay- 
ment was  made  to  a  creditor  of  the 
contractor  upon  the  false  repre- 
sentation of  such  creditor  that  he 
had  assumed  all  the  contractor's 
d^bts  does  not  make  the  payment 
fraudulent  as  against  the  sub- 
contractors, since  the  owner  is 
not  obliged  to  protect  them  until 
they  give  him  the  statutory  notice. 
Burt  V.  Parker  County,  77  Tex. 
338,  14  S.  W.  335.  See  also  Hall 
V.  Banks,  79  Wis.  229,  48  N.  W. 
385;  Drall  v.  Gordon,  51  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  618,  101  N.  Y.  Supp.  171. 


171 


PAYMENT  TO  PRINCIPAL  CONTRACTOR. 


[§67 


ment,*  unless  it  was  actually  carried  into  execution  before  the 
owner  was  in  some  way  obliged  to  hold  the  money  for  the  sub- 
contractor.^ Giving  the  contractor  credit,  if  done  in  good 
faith,  and  before  notice,  is  considered  a  valid  payment,*^  and,  so, 
the  endorsement  by  the  owner  of  the  contractor's  notes.'^  Under 
the  Iowa  statute  it  has  been  held  that  notes  will  not  be  a 
payment  unless  given  to  discharge  claims  that  might  have  been 
a  lien.^  Generally,  however,  where  the  owner  becomes  legally 
responsible  to  a  third  person  for  the  debt,  it  is  a  payment.^ 
Giving  security  for  the  payment  of  the  contract  price, ^"^  or 
taking  goods  to  be  sold  and  the  proceeds  held  for  that  purpose, 
is  not  a  payment,^ ^  nor  money  paid  by  the  owner  for  materials 
to  complete  the  contract. ^2  Where  the  statute  makes  the 
owner  liable  regardless  of  the  state  of  account  between  him 
and  the  contractor,  no  payment  to  the  contractor  will  relieve 
him  from  liability  to  subcontractors.^^  Where  the  subcon- 
tractor's rights  become  fixed  at  the  time  notice  is  given,  pay- 


4  Gridley  v.  Sumner,  43  Conn.  14. 

5  St.  Louis  Nat.  Stock  Yards  v. 
O'Reilly,  85  111.  546;  Sunset  Brick, 
&c.,  Co.  V.  Stratton  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  53  S.  W.  703;  Hampton  v. 
Christensen,  148  Cal.  729,  84  Pac. 
200. 

6  Allen  V.  Carman,  1  E.  D.  Smith 
(N.  Y.)  692. 

7  Smith  V.  Merriam,  67  Barb  (N. 
Y.)  403. 

8  Merritt  v.  Hopkins,  96  Iowa 
652,  65  N.  W.  1015. 

9  Gibson  v.  Lenane,  94  N.  Y. 
183;  Garrison  v.  Mooney,  9  Daly 
(N.  Y.)  218. 

1''  Gass  V.  Souther,  46  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)   256,  61  N.  Y.  Supp.  305. 

11  Bartlett  v.  Mahlum,  88  Iowa 
329,  55  N.  W.  514. 

12  Rodbourn  v.  Seneca  Lake 
Grape  &  Wine  Co,  67  N.  Y.  215. 


13  Indiana. — Indiana  R.  Co.  v. 
Wadsworth,  29  Ind.  App.  586,  64 
N.  E.  938. 

Louisiana. — Nolte  v.  Their  Cred- 
itors, 6  Mart.  (N.  S.)   (La.)   169. 

Maryland. — Shoop  v.  Powles,  13 
Md.  304. 

Montana. — Gould  v.  Barnard,  14 
Mont.  335,  36  Pac.  317. 

Missouri. — Ittner  v.  Hughes,  133 
Mo.  679,  34  S.  W.  1110;  Henry  v. 
Evans,  97  Mo.  47,  10  S.  W.  868,  3 
L.  R.  A.  332. 

Tennessee. — Reeves  v.  Hender- 
son, 90  Tenn.  521,  18  S.  W.  242. 
Washington  Code,  1957,  provides 
that  every  person  performing  la- 
bor upon,  or  furnishing  materials 
to  be  used  in,  the  construction  of 
a  building,  has  a  lien  therefor, 
v/hether  furnished  at  the  instance 
of  the  owner  or  his  agent,  and 
that,  for  the  purpose  of  the  act. 


§67 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO  LIEN. 


172 


ment  thereafter  is  made  subject  to  the  subcontractor's  right. ^^ 
The  rule  under  the  majority  of  statutes  is  that  the  owner  may 
pay  the  principal  contractor  without  liability,  until  notice  has 
been  given  in  the  manner  provided  by  statute.^^  Some  stat- 
utes do  not  limit  the  time  for  which  the  owner  shall  hold  the 
money, ^'^  while  in  others  a  certain  length  of  time  is  specified, 
in  which  case  the  owner  must  hold  it  until  the  limit  has  ex- 
pired.^' If  the  owner  is  bound  to  withhold  payments  only 
after  notice  is  given,  then  no  other  knowledge  or  notice  is 
suf^cient  except  that  given  in  the  manner  provided  by  stat- 
ute.^^  Under  the  Iowa  statute  which  allows  a  subcontractor 
to  file  his  claim  within  a  certain  time  after  his  work  is  done 


every  contractor  shall  be  held  to 
be  the  owner's  agent.  The  mate- 
rial man  or  laborer  has  a  lien, 
notwithstanding  payment  to  the 
contractor.  Spokane  Mfg.  &  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  McChesney,  1  Wash.  St. 
609,   21   Pac.  198. 

14  California, — McCants  v.  Bush, 
71  Cal.  125,  11  Pac.  601;  Kruse  v. 
Wilson,  3  Cal.  App.  91,  84  Pac.  442. 

Illinois. — Brown  v.  Lowell,  79 
111.  484;  Morehouse  v.  Moulding, 
74  111.  322. 

Louisiana. — Moores  v.  Wire,  8 
La.  Ann.  382;  Rousselot  v.  Kirwin, 
8  La.  Ann.  300. 

Jfew  York. — Carman  v.  Mcln- 
crow,  13  N.  Y.  70,  2  E.  D.  Smith 
(N.  Y.)  689;  McMillan  v.  Seneca 
Lake  Grape  &  Wine  Co.,  5  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  12. 

15  California. — Kerckhoff  -  Cuz- 
ner  Mill,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Cummings,  86 
Cal.  22,  24  Pac.  814;  Wells  v. 
Cahn,  51  Cal.  423;  Renton  v.  Con- 
ley,  49  Cal.  185;  McAlpin  v.  Dun- 
can, 16  Cal.  126. 

Georgia. — New  Ebenezer  Assn. 
V.  Gress  Lumber  Co.,  89  Ga.  125, 


14  S.  E.  892;  Guernsey  v.  Reeves, 
58  Ga.  290. 

Illinois. — Prescott  v.  Maxwell, 
48  111.  82. 

Louisiana. — Deblieux  v.  Record- 
er of  Mortgages,  25  La.  Ann.  61. 

'Sew  York. — Schneider  v.  Ho- 
bein,  41  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  232; 
Thompson  v.  Yates,  28  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  142;  Carman  v.  Mclncrow, 
13  N.  Y.  70,  2  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.) 
689;  Kennedy  v.  Paine,  1  E.  D. 
Smith   (N.  Y.)    651. 

Tennessee. — Brown  v.  Crump,  32 
Tenn.   (2  Swan)  531. 

Texas. — Burt  v.  Parker  County, 
77  Tex.  338,  14  S.  W.  335;  Sens  v. 
Trentune,  54  Tex.  218. 

16  Crawfordsville  v.  Johnson,  51 
Ind.  397;  Colter  v.  Frese,  45  Ind. 
96;  Clark  v.  Huey,  12  Ind.  App. 
224,  40  N.  E.  152. 

1'^  Hug  v.  Hintrager,  80  Iowa 
359,  45  N.  W.  1035;  Carey-Lom- 
bard Lumber  Co.  v.  Partridge,  10 
Utah  322,  37  Pac.  572. 

18  Cudworth  v.  Bostwick,  69  N. 
H.  536,  45  Atl.  408;  Taylor  v. 
Wahl,  72  N.  J.  L.  10,  60  Atl.  63; 


173  PREMATURE  PAYMENT.  [§  68 

and  material  furnished,  an  owner  without  knowledge  of  a  sub- 
contractor's claim,  need  not  hold  the  fund  until  the  time  limit 
for  filing-  has  expired. ^^  However,  if  the  contract  did  not  re- 
quire such  payment  but  the  owner  knew  the  subcontractor  did 
the  work,  he  must  withhold  payment  even  though  he  did  not 
know  they  were  not  paid.^o  And  in  making  all  such  payments 
the  owner  is  put  upon  inquiry  and  must  act  in  good  faith  to  be 
protected.21 

§  68.  Advance  and  premature  payments  as  affecting  per- 
sons not  under  direct  contract. — What  was  said  in  the  preced- 
ing section  is  largely  true  as  to  advances  and  premature  pay- 
ments; unless  the  statute  directs  to  the  contrary,  payments  so 
made  will  be  valid. ^  But  in  order  to  protect  the  owner,  such 
payments  must  be  made  according  to  the  terms  of  the  contract, 
and  without  collusion  or  fraud.^  If  made  in  advance  of  the 
time  or  in  a  manner  otherwise  than  stipulated  in  the  principal 
contract,  as  a  general  rule  the  owner  will  not  be  protected  for 
the  subcontractor  has  a  right  to  rely  upon  the  conditions  of  the 
original  contract  as  to  the  time  and  manner  of  payment.^  An 
exception  has  been  made  where  the  owner  in  good  faith,  to 
enable  the  contractor  to  proceed  with  the  work,  has  advanced 

Kelly  V.   Bloomingdale,   19   N.   Y.  Lonisiana. — Miller  v.   Reynolds, 

Supp.    126,    64    Hun    (N.    Y.)    634  5  Mart.   (N.  S.)    (La.)    665. 

(without  opinion).  Tennessee. — McCrary  v.  Bristol 

19  Andrews  v.  Burdick,  62  Iowa  Bank,  &c.,  Co.,  97  Tenn.  469,  37  S. 
714,  16  N.  W.  275;  Hug  v.  Hintra-  W.  543. 

ger,  80  Iowa  359,  45  N.  W.  1035.  Texas.— Riter  v.  Houston  Oil  Re- 

20  Othmer  v.  Clifton,  69  Iowa  fining  &  Mfg.  Co.,  19  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
656,  29  N.  W.  767;  Fay  v.  Orison,  516,  48  S.  W.  758.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
60  Iowa  136,  14  N.  W.  213.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  115. 

21  Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Wood-  2  Lind  v.  Braender,  15  Daly  (N. 
side,  71  Iowa  361,  32  N.  W.  381;  Y.)  370,  7  N.  Y.  Supp.  664;  Fitz- 
Gilcrist  v.  Anderson,  59  Iowa  gibbon  v.  Green,  1  W.  L.  B.  110,  5 
274,  13  N.  W.  290.  Am.  Law  Rec.  2,  5  Ohio  Dec.  (Re.) 

1  Georgia. — Allen  v.  Schweigert,  350. 

113  Ga.  69,  38  S.  B.  397.  3  California,— Walsh    v.    McMe- 

lowa. — Andrews  v.   Burdick,   62  nomy,  74  Cal.  356,  16  Pac.  17. 

Iowa  714,  16  N.  W.  275.  District     of      Columbia,— Riggs 


68] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT   TO   LIEN. 


174 


funds,  in  which  case  he  is  allowed  credit  for  the  same,  even 
as  ag'ainst  subcontractors.  But  in  such  cases  it  is  incumbent 
upon  the  owner  to  show  that  the  money  was  actually  used  in 
the  work.^  It  has  been  held  that  payment  as  the  work  pro- 
gressed is  not  a  premature  payment,  and  if  the  work  is  practic- 
ally completed,  but  not  technically  so,  it  will  not  be  an  ad- 
vanced payment.^  Neither  is  it  an  advanced  payment,  if  it 
does  not  exceed  that  to  which  the  contractor  is  entitled.^  If 
the  statute  compels  the  owner  to  see  that  the  subcontractor  is 
paid,  then  all  payments  otherwise  made  are  premature,  and 
the  owner  is  liable.'^     Laws  requiring  the  owner  to  withhold 


Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Shedd,  16  App. 
(D.    C.)    150. 

Iowa. — Green  Bay  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Thomas,  106  Iowa  154,  76  N.  W. 
651. 

Jfew  York. — Post  v.  Campbell, 
83  N.  Y.  279;  Banham  v.  Roberts, 
78  Hun  (N.  Y.)  246,  28  N.  Y.  Supp. 
828;  Lumbard  v.  Syracuse  R.  Co., 
55  N.  Y.  494. 

4  Connecticut, — Abbey  v.  Herzer, 
74  Conn.  493,  51  Atl.  513;  Spauld- 
ing  V.  Thompson  Ecclesiastical 
Soc,  27  Conn.  573. 

Indiana. — Caulfield  v.  Polk 
(Ind.),  46  N.  E.  932. 

New  York. — Lynch  v.  Cashman, 
3  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  660. 

Ohio. — Schneidhorst  v.  Lueck- 
ing,  26  Ohio  St.  47;  Village  of  Port 
Clinton  v.  Cleveland  Stone  Co.,  10 
Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  1;  Foeller  v.  Voight, 
5  Ohio  Dec.  (Re.)  349,  5  Am.  Law 
Rec.  1,  1  W.  L.  B.  116. 

Georgia. — Prince  v.  Neal-Millard 
Co.,  124  Ga.  884,  53  S.  E.  761;  Tuck 
V.  Moss  Mfg.  Co.,  127  Ga.  729,  56  S. 
E.  1001. 

5  Stimson  Mill  Co.  v.  Riley 
(Cal.),    42    Pac.    1072;     Veitch  v. 


Clark,  67  N.  J.  Eq.  57,  57  Atl.  272; 
First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Hilliboe  (N. 
Dak.),  114  N.  W.  1085. 

6  Subcontractors  who  furnished 
labor  and  materials  with  the 
knowledge  of  the  owner  cannot 
complain  that  he  paid  the  con- 
tractor in  advance  of  the  esti- 
mates, under  a  contract  providing 
for  payment  of  a  certain  per  cent, 
monthly  on  estimates  of  the  su- 
perintending architect,  where  it 
appears  that  the  contractor  was 
not  paid  more  than  such  percent- 
age for  the  work  actually  done, 
and  that,  on  his  default  in  com- 
pleting the  work,  the  owner  fin- 
ished it  at  a  total  cost  greater 
than  the  contract  price.  Epeneter 
V.  Montgomery  County,  98  Iowa, 
159,  67  N.  W.  93. 

"  Acts  1895,  §  18,  relative  to  me- 
chanics' liens,  providing  that  the 
owner  or  builder  shall  not  be  lia- 
ble for  more  than  the  prices 
agreed  on  between  the  owner  and 
contractor  providing  also  that  the 
owner  shall  pay  no  money  to  the 
contractor  until  laborers  and  ma- 
terial men  shall  have  been  paid, 


175 


ADVANCE  PAYMENTS. 


[§68 


payment  and  making  him  liable  for  not  so  doing,  are  consti- 
tutional.^ Where  the  statute  provides  that  a  certain  portion 
shall  be  held,  such  part  must  be  retained.^     It  has  been  held, 


an  owner  paying  money  to  a  con- 
tractor on  his  personal  account 
before  a  material  man  was  paid 
in  full  is  liable  to  the  material 
man  for  the  sum  so  paid.  Barton 
V.  Grand  Lodge,  I.  O.  O.  P.,  71 
Ark.  35,  70  S.  W.  305;  see  also. 
Green  v.  Farrar  Lumber  Co.,  119 
Ga.  30,  46  S.  E.  62;  Nelson  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Mann,  24  Ky.  L.  R.  1547, 
71  S.  W.  851;  Fourcher  v.  Day,  6 
La.  Ann.  60;  Sierra  Nevada  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Whitmore,  24  Utah  130, 
66  Pac.  779. 

8  California, — Hicks  v.  Murray, 
43  Cal.  515. 

Indiana. — Colter  v.  Frese,  45 
Ind.    96. 

Kentucky. — Hightower  v.  Bailey. 
108  Ky.  198,  56  S.  W.  147. 

Massachusetts. — Bowen  v.  Phin- 
ney,  162  Mass.  593;  Donahy  v. 
Clapp,  12  Cush.   (Mass.)   440. 

Minnesota, — Laird  v.  Mornon, 
32  Minn.  358,  20  N.  W.  354. 

Missouri. — Heny  v.  Coalswork, 
97  Mo.  47,  10  S.  W.  868,  3  L.  R. 
A.   332. 

Jfebraska, — Balton  v.  Black,  21 
Neb.  131,  31  N.  W.  673. 

Xeyada. — Hunter  v.  Truckee 
Lodge,  14  Nev.  24. 

Tennessee. — Cole  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Falls,  90  Tenn.  466,  16  S.  W. 
1045. 

Wisconsin. — Mallory  v.  Abat- 
toir,  80  Wis.   170,   49   N.   W.   1071. 

United  States. — Jones  v.  Great 
Southern,  etc..  Hotel  Co.,  86  Fed. 
370. 


f  Barton  v.  Grand  Lodge,  I.  O. 
O.  F.,  71  Ark.  35,  70  S.  W.  305. 
Under  Code  Civ.  Proc.  1184,  re- 
quiring the  contract  for  erecting 
a  building  to  specify  times  when 
payments  are  to  be  made,  and  re- 
quiring 25  per  cent,  of  the  price 
to  be  retained  until  35  days  after 
completion,  partial  payments, 
however  they  are  specified  as  to 
time,  may  be  safely  made,  pro- 
vided no  notice  of  their  subcon- 
tract is  given  by  material  men, 
in  the  absence  of  which  they  must 
rely  on  the  responsibility  of  the 
contractor,  and  the  25  per  cent, 
required  to  be  retained;  and  they 
are  not  injured  by  any  uncertain- 
ty as  to  the  times  of  payment  spe- 
cified, nor  by  payments  in  ad- 
vance of  the  specified  time.  Dun- 
lop  V.  Kennedy,  102  Cal.  443,  34 
Pac.  92.  See  also  Kerckhoff-Cuz- 
ner  Mill  &  Lbr.  Co.  v.  Cummings, 
86  Cal.  22,  24  Pac.  814;  Sidlinger 
V.  Kerkow,  82  Cal.  42,  22  Pac. 
932;  Barlow  v.  Gaffney,  76  Conn. 
107,  55  Atl.  582;  Allen  v.  Schwei- 
gert,  113  Ga.  69,  38  S.  E.  397; 
McAuliffe  V.  Bailie,  89  Ga.  356,  15 
S.  E.  474.  Civ.  Code,  2802,  2803, 
which  require  the  owner  who 
gives  out  a  contract  for  the  erec- 
tion of  a  building  on  his  land  to 
retain  25  per  cent,  of  the  con- 
tract price,  for  the  benefit  of  la- 
borers and  material  men,  do  not 
prevent  such  owner  from  making 
partial  payments  to  the  contract- 
or from  time  to  time  as  the  work 
progresses,    provided    the    aggre- 


68] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING  RIGHT  TO  LIEN. 


176 


however,  that  the  subcontractor  cannot  rely  upon  a  stipulation 
in  the  contract  to  retain  a  certain  amount,  but  he  must  give 
the  notice  required  by  statute.^*^  A  subcontractor  has  the 
right  to  rely  upon  the  statute,  and  if  the  statute  gives  him  a 
certain  time  within  which  to  file  his  notice,  all  payments  made 
before  the  expiration  of  such  time  are  made  at  the  owner's 
risk.^i  Some  courts  have  held  that  if  the  principal  contract 
provides  that  payment  shall  be  made  before  the  expiration  of 
the  time  limit  for  filing  claims,  the  subcontractor  is  presumed 
to  know  of  such  provision  and  is  bound  by  it,  and  if  he  neglects 
to  file  his  claim  or  give  notice,  and  payments  are  made  bona 
fide,  the  owner  will  be  protected. ^^  jj^  Iowa  it  is  held  that  the 
owner  to  be  protected  must  have  no  knowledge  of  the  subcon- 
tractor's claim,i2a  and  in  Illinois  that  the  contractor  must 
give  the  owner  a  list  of  subcontractors,  or  the  sub- 
contractor    must     give     notice, ^^     but     under     a     later     de- 


gate  of  such  payments  does  not 
exceed  75  per  cent,  of  the  con- 
tract price.  Hunnicut  v.  Van 
Hoose,  111  Ga.  518,  36  S.  E. 
669;  see  also  Green  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Nutriment  Co.,  113  111.  App. 
635;  Campbell  v.  Green,  etc., 
Lumber  Co.,  99  111.  App.  647. 
Under  Comp.  St.  c.  54,  §  2,  all  pay- 
ments within  60  days,  by  the  own- 
er of  the  building  to  the  original 
contractor,  will  be  at  his  own 
risk,  and,  against  one  furnishing 
material  for  the  construction  of 
the  building,  the  fact  that  the 
original  contractor  is  indebted  to 
the  owner  will  not  prevent  the 
material  man  from  enforcing  his 
lien  for  such  material  against 
such  building,  and  the  lot  on 
which  it  stands.  Ballon  v.  Black, 
21  Neb.  131,  31  N.  W.  673;  see  also 
Torrance    v.    Cratchley,    31    Ont. 


546;  McArthur  v.  Dewar,  3  Mani- 
toba 72. 

10  James  v.  St.  Paul's  Sanita- 
rium, 24  Tex.  Civ.  App.,  60  S.  W. 
322. 

11  Illinois. — Havighorst  v.  Lind- 
berg,  67  111.  463. 

Kansas. — Shellabarger  v.  Thay- 
er, 15  Kan.  619. 

Nevada. — Lonkey  v.  Cook,  15 
Nev.  58 ;  Hunter  v.  Truckee  Lodge 
No.  14,  14  Nev.  24. 

South  Dakota. — Albright  v. 
Smith,  2  S.  Dak.  577,  51  N.  W. 
590. 

12  Merritt  v.  Hopkins,  96  Iowa, 
652,  65  N.  W.  1015;  Winter  v. 
Hudson,  54  Iowa  336,  6  N.  W.  541; 
Courtat  V.  Ehrhardt,  28  W.  L.  B. 
Ohio  138;  McKnight  v.  Washing- 
ton, 8  W.  Va.  666. 

12a  See  §  67,  note  19. 

13  Butler  V.  Gain,  128  111.  23, 
21    N.    E.    350;    Shaw   v.    Chicago 


177  WRONGFUL  PAYMENT.  [§  69 

cision  it  is  held  that  a  failure  to  give  such  statement 
does  not  protect  the  owner,  and  he  pays  at  his  peril. i-*  The 
subcontractor  may  waive  his  rights.^^  Under  the  New  Jersey 
statute,  the  owner  upon  payment  to  the  contractor  may  re- 
quire that  he  give  releases  from  all  the  subcontractors,  and 
if  the  owner  pays  without  requiring  such  release,  he  does  so 
at  his  peril. 1^ 

§  69.  Wrongful  payment  by  owner — Ohio  statutes. — Section 
3203  is  as  follows :  If  by  collusion  or  fraud,  the  owner,  board,  offi- 
cer, or  the  authorized  clerk  or  agent  thereof,  pay  in  advance  of  the 
payments  due  under  the  contract,  and  thereby  diminish  the 
amount  of  funds  for  such  laborer,  mechanic,  subcontractor,  or 
material  man  he  shall  be  liable  to  such  laborer,  mechanic,  sub- 
contractor or  material  man  to  the  amount  that  w^ould  have  been 
due  on  such  contract  at  the  date  of  filing  of  an  account  and 
affidavit  in  such  manner  as  if  no  payment  had  been  made.^ 
This  section  by  its  negatory  pi^ovisions,  recognizes  the  doc- 
trine that  all  payments  in  good  faith,  made  before  notice, 
will  be  considered  as  valid  for  the  protection  of  the  owner, 

Sash,  Door  &  Blind  Mfg.  Co.,  144  a  compliance  with  Act  March  29, 

111.    520,    33    N.   E.    870;    see    §72,  1892,  supplementing  the  mechan- 

note   4.  ic's   lien  law;    and  hence   a   pay- 

14  Hintze  v.  Weiss,  45  111.  App.  ment  by  the  owner  to  the  con- 
220;  Chicago  Sash  Mfg.  Co.  v.  tractor  of  money  due  on  the  con- 
Shaw,  44  111.  App.  618,  33  N.  E.  tract  on  presentation  of  such  re- 
870;  Wieska  v.  Imroth,  43  111.  lease  and  affidavit,  did  not  oper- 
App.  357;  Hampton  v.  Christen-  ate  as  a  bar  to  such  claims  as 
sen,  148  Cal.  729,  84  Pac.  200.  remained  unreleased  and  unsatis- 

15  Burnside  v.  O'Hara,  35  111.  fied.  Magowan  v.  Stevenson,  58 
App.  150.  N.   J.   L.   31,  32  Atl.   1057;    Bruce 

16  A  release  of  claims  executed  v.  Pearsall,  59  N.  J.  L.  62,  34  Atl. 
by  only  a  portion  of  the  laborers  982;  Anderson  Lumber  Co.  v. 
and  material  men,  to  which  was  Priedlander,  54  N.  J.  L.  375,  24 
annexed   an   affidavit  of  the   con-  Atl.  434. 

tractor  showing  that  some  of  the  '  Ohio   Laws   99,   p.   503;    see    § 

laborers    and    material    men    had       68. 
not  joined  in  the  release,  was  not 

12 


§^0] 


CONDITIONS  GIVING   RIGHT   TO   LIEN. 


178 


and  should  be  liberally  construed  to  that  effect.^  The  word 
"collusion"  here,  does  not  simply  mean  in  advance.^  Where  a 
building  is  not  completed  within  the  time  contracted  for,  the 
owner  may  settle  in  full  with  the  contractor.'* 

§  70.  Wrongful  payment  by  owner — Ohio  statute — what 
are  advance  payments. — This  section  (3203)  merely  means, 
that  the  owner  should  not  be  held  liable,  unless  his  payment 
works  a  fraud  on  the  rights  of  material  men,  and  others,  which 
fact  will  not  be  presumed,  but  must  be  proven  as  in  other 
cases.  Advance  payments  are  not  such  as  the  owner  may 
make  to  the  contractor  to  enable  him  to  complete  the  work.^ 
Payments  made  on  estimates  of  a  superintending  architect, 
are  not  advance  payments,  so  as  to  make  an  owner  liable  to 
material  men.^  Payment  to  a  contractor,  under  a  contract 
to  build  a  house  for  a  gross  sum.  of  more  than  the  contract  re- 
quired, if  made  before  notice  of  claims  is  not  a  constructive 
fraud,  although  payment  is  made  by  the  owner  without 
taking  care  to  ascertain  facts  as  to  the  claims  of  the  material 
men.3  Unauthorized  payment  to  a  contractor  by  a  loan 
company,  out  of  money  borrowed  for  building  purposes,  must 
be  made  good  by  said  company.'*  The  owner  may  set  off  a 
valid  claim  he  may  have  against  the  contractor,  against  the 
claim  of  a  subcontractor.^ 


2  Tollheis  v.  James,  11  Ohio 
Dec.  (Re.)  213,  25  Ohio  L.  Bull. 
277,  4  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  646,  7  Ohio 
C.    C.    386. 

3  Feldner  v.  Voight,  1  Ohio  L. 
Bull.  116,  7  Ohio  Dec.    (Re.)    109, 

4  Am.  L.  Rec.  671,  5  Am.  L.  Rec. 
1,  1  Law  Bull.  116,  5  Dec.  (Re.) 
336,  349;  Strum  v.  Ritz,  1  Ohio 
L.   Bull.   150,  7   Dec.    (Re.)    135. 

4  Fitzgibhon  v.  Green,  1  Ohio  L. 
Bull.   110,   7    Ohio   Dec.    (Re.)    99, 

5  Ohio  Dec.  (Re.)  350,  5  A.  L. 
Rec.  2. 


1  Schneidhorst  v.  Luecking,  26 
Ohio  St.  47. 

2  Clements  v.  Hamilton  Co.,  5 
Ohio  Dec.  (Re.)  126,  2  A.  L.  Rec. 
729. 

3  Hayes  v.  Locke.  33  Ohio  L. 
Bull.    228,   1   O.    S.   U.   303. 

4  Resting  v.  Donahue,  5  Ohio 
Dec.  153,  7  Ohio  (N.  P.)  377,  af- 
firmed, 6  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  262,  13 
Ohio  C.  C.  653,  2  Ohio  Dec.  567. 

5  Stark  V.  Simmons,  54  Ohio  St. 
435.  43  N.  E.  999.   . 


CHAPTER  3. 


PROCEEDINGS  REQUIRED   ON    PART   OF   CLAIMANT  TO   PERFECT   LIEN. 


Sec.  Sec. 

71.  Statute    must      be      followed        88. 
and   lien   perfected. 

72.  Notice    to   owner    generally. 

73.  Notice    to    owner — Waiver. 

74.  Notice    to    owner — To    whom        89. 
given. 

75.  Notice  to  owner — When  giv- 
en. 90. 

76.  Notice  to  owner — ^Form  and 
requisites.  91. 

77.  Notice  to  owner — Descrip- 
tion  of   property — Service. 

78.  Service  of  notice — Ohio  stat- 
ute. 92. 

79.  Filing    contract — Notice. 

80.  Filing  claim  or  statement. 

81.  Lien  of  principal  contractor        93. 
— How    acquired — Ohio    stat- 
ute. 

82.  Lien — How      acquired — Prin-        94. 
cipal      and      subcontractor — 
Indiana  statute.  95. 

83.  Lien   —   Filing   —    Duration 

— Indiana    statute.  96. 

84.  Lien  —  Exemptions  —  Pri- 
ority— Form  —  Indiana  stat- 
ute. 97. 

85.  Claim    or    statement    on    one 

or  more  buildings  or  lots  of        98. 
land. 

86.  Claim     or     statement — Place 

and    mode    of    filing.  99. 

87.  Filing  notice  by  subcontrac- 
tor with  recorder  to  notify 
fellow  laborers — Ohio  stat- 
ute. 


When  and  how  subcontractor 
may  obtain  lien  on  the  prop- 
erty of  the  owner — Ohio 
statute. 

Lien      entitled      to      priority 
over  lien  of  head  contractor 
— Ohio  statute. 
Claim    or    statement — Notice 
of  filing. 

Upon  notice  owner  shall  re- 
tain subsequent  payments 
due  contractor — Ohio  stat- 
ute. 

Copy  of  statement  to  be  fur- 
nished head  contractor — His 
dutj' — Ohio  statute. 
Notice  to  head  contractor — 
Priority  of  liens — Ohio  stat- 
ute. 

Claim  or  statement — Time 
within  which  to  be  filed. 
Claim  or  statement — ^Filing 
on  completion  of  building. 
Claim  or  statement — Filing 
on  completion  of  building; 
continued. 

Claim  or  statement — Items 
to  renew  period  for  filing. 
Claim  or  statement  —  Effect 
of  successive  deliveries  on 
time  for  filing. 
Claim  or  statement — Extras 
— Contractors  and  subcon- 
tors  —  Amendments  as  to 
time  of  filing. 

179 


71] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


180 


Sec.  Sec. 

100.  Claim     or     statement — Form      112. 
and  contents. 

101.  Claim    or    statement — Desig-      113. 
nation    of      parties    and    de- 
scription of   building.  114. 

102.  Claim    or    statement — Notice 

of  intention  to  claim.  115. 

103.  Claim      or      statement  —  De- 
scription of  property.  116. 

104.  Claim  or   statement — Portion 

of  land  to  be  described.  117. 

105.  Claim      or      statement  —  De- 
scription of  building — Error.      118. 

106.  Claim     or     statement — Aver- 
ment of  ownership.  119. 

107.  Claim    or      statement — Pecu- 
liar   ownership.  120. 

108.  Claim      or      statement  —  De- 
scription of  services   or  ma-      121. 
terial. 

109.  Claim     or     statement— Suffi-      122. 
cient  description  of  material. 

110.  Claim    or      statement — Aver-      123. 
ment    of    contract    with      or 
consent  of  owner.  124. 

111.  Claim    or    statement — Terms 
of   contract. 


Claim    or      statement — Name 
of  employer  or  contractor. 
Claim  or  statement — Time  of 
rendering   services. 
Claim     or     statement — Suffi- 
ciency as  to  time. 
Claim  or  statement  —  Aver- 
ment of  amount  due. 
Claim    or      statement — Item- 
ized  account. 

Claim     or     statement — Suffi- 
ciency  of   detail. 
Claim    or    statement — Signa- 
ture  of  claimant. 
Claim    or     statement — Verifi- 
cation. 

Claim    or     statement — Verifi- 
cation, continued. 
Claim    or    statement — Errors 
and  defects. 

Claim    or    statement — Errors 
and    defects,    continued. 
Claim  or  statement — Amend- 
ment  of. 

Claim  or   statement — Cancel- 
lation of. 


§  71.     Statute  must   be   followed  and  lien  perfected. — The 

preceding  chapters  have  been  occupied  with  a  consideration  of 
the  interests  and  estates  liable  to  a  mechanic's  lien  and  the 
conditions  under  which  a  claimant  is  entitled  thereto.  These 
matters  are  conditions  precedent  to  the  existence  of  a  lien. 
But  something  more  is  needed  to  make  the  right  effective,  and 
it  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  consider  the  steps  required 
of  a  claimant  to  perfect  a  lien  to  which  he  is  entitled  under 
the  rules  heretofore  developed.  The  courts  are  not  agreed 
on  the  question  whether  the  procedure  is  a  substantive  or  re- 
medial part  of  the  law.  Many  of  the  courts  hold  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  strict  construction  and  require  a  strict  compliance  with 


181 


STATUTE   MUST  BE  FOLLOWED. 


[§71 


statutory  provisions  relating  to  this  procedure.^  Other  courts, 
however,  hold  to  a  liberal  construction  and  are  satisfied  with  a 
substantial  compliance  with  the  statute  in  matters  of  proceed- 
ings to  perfect  liens.  In  the  opinion  of  the  writer  the  better 
reason  is  with  these  courts,  and  their  rule  of  liberal  construc- 
tion should  prevail.^  The  spirit  and  purpose  of  the  law  is  to 
do  substantial  justice  to  all  parties  who  may  be  affected  by  its 
provisions.^  No  uniform  rule  as  to  what  must  be  done  can  be 
given ;  the  particular  statute  of  each  state  must  be  consulted 
and  then  followed  as  closely  as  practicable,  so  that  substantial 
justice  may  be  worked  out  to  all  parties  concerned.^ 


1  Carey-Lombard  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Fullenwider,  150  111.  629.  The' 
statute  is  more  than  remedial;  it 
creates  new  rights  or  liability  as 
well  as  a  new  remedy,  and  being 
in  derogation  of  the  common  law, 
should  be  strictly  rather  than  lib- 
erally construed.  Newell  v. 
Cpmpbell  Mach.  Co.,  17  R.  I.  74, 
20  Atl.  158;  Rice  v.  Carmichael, 
4  Colo.  App.  84,  34  Pac.  1010, 
Thurston  v.  Prentiss,  1  Mich.  193; 
Bassett  v.  Carleton,  32  Me.  553; 
Renwick  v.  Morris,  7  Hill  (N.  Y.) 
575. 

2  The  act  must  be  construed,  so 
as  to  render  the  greatest  amount 
of  benefit  to  those  for  whose  in- 
terest it  was  made,  and  at  the 
same  time,  to  save  from  injury 
the  other  class  of  persons  upon 
whom  it  operates,  as  far  as  prac- 
ticable. Patrick  v.  Ballentine,  22 
Mo.  143.  While  the  41st  section 
of  the  Mechanics'  Lien  Law  re- 
quires a  liberal  construction,  it  is 
nevertheless  necessary  that  it 
should  be  substantially  complied 
with,  before  a  party  can  be  suc- 
cessful in  a  court  of  equity.    Her- 


mann v.  Mertens,  87  Md.  725,  39 
Atl.  618.  This  statute  is  highly 
remedial,  and  courts  should  not 
indulge  in  such  niceties  of  con- 
struction, or  such  useless  re- 
quirement in  practice  under  it  as 
will  tend  to  defeat  its  object 
without  resulting  in  any  good  end. 
Oilman  v.  Gard,  29  Ind.  291;  Hess 
V.  Poultney,  10  Md.  257.  To  rend- 
er a  mechanics'  lien  valid,  it  must 
appear  upon  its  face  that  all  the 
provisions  of  the  statute  neces- 
sary to  its  creation  have  been 
substantially  complied  with. 
United  States  Blowpipe  Co.  v. 
Spencer,  61  W.  Va.  191,  56  S.  E. 
345. 

3  Putnam  v.  Ross,  46  Mo.  338; 
Hall  V.  Erkfitz,  125  Mich  332,  84 
N.    W.    310. 

4  Wees  V.  Elbon,  61  W.  Va.  380, 
56  S.  E.  611.  Though  the  lien  of 
a  material  man  is  recognized  by 
the  constitution,  the  statute  pre- 
scribing the  method  of  preserving 
a  lien  must  be  complied  with,  or 
it  will  not  prevail  as  against 
third  persons.  Kinsey  v.  Spurlin, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.)   102  S.  W.  122. 


72] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN, 


182 


§  72.  Notice  to  owner  generally. — It  is  against  the  princi- 
ples relating  to  the  ownership  of  property  that  a  lien  should 
be  fastened  thereon  without  the  owner's  knowledge.  Therefore, 
unless  the  statute  in  some  manner  makes  the  owner  directly 
liable  to  a  subcontractor  or  material  man/  such  subcontractor 
or  material  man  is  required  to  give  notice  of  his  claim. ^  Under 
some  statutes  when  the  owner  makes  a  contract  for  material, 
he  impliedly  agrees  that  the  subcontractor  and  material  men  may 
have  a  lien  on  his  property.  This  is  particularly  true  under 
the  Pennsylvania  system,  where  the  lien  of  subcontractors 
and  material  men  is  directly  against  the  owner.  Under  the 
New  York  System  the  subcontractor  and  material  man  work 
out  their  claims  through  the  principal  contractor.  Where  the 
contract  is  directly  with  the  owner,  generally  no  notice  is  re- 


1  California, — Davies-Henderson 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Gottschalk,  81  Cal. 
841,  22  Pac.  860;  Kellogg  v. 
Howes,  81   Cal.  170,  22   Pac.   509. 

Massacliusetts. — Whitford  v. 
Newell,  2  Allen   (84  Mass.)   424. 

Michigan. — Kerr-Murray  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Kalamazoo  Heat  Co.,  124 
Mich  111,  82  N.  W.  801;  Klrkwood 
V.  Hoxie,  95  Mich.  62,  54  N.  W. 
720,  35  Am.  St.  549. 

Oregon. — Ainslie  v.  Kohn,  16 
Ore.  363,  19  Pac.  97.  Should  be 
liberally  construed.  McNab,  &c., 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Paterson  Bldg.  Co.  (N. 
J.  Eq.)  63  Atl.  709;  see  Dec.  and 
Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Lien,  § 
117. 

2  California, — Ganahl  v.  Weir, 
130  Cal.   237,   62  Pac.  512. 

Colorado. — Sickman  v.  Wollett, 
31  Colo.  58,  71  Pac.  1107. 

Florida.— Scott  v.  Hempel,  33 
Fla.   313,  14   So.    840. 

Illinois. — Mantonya  v.  Reilly, 
184  111.  183,  56  N.  E.  425;  also  83 
111.  275;   Green  &  Lombard  Lum- 


ber Co.  V.  Bain,  77  111.  App.  17; 
see  §  56. 

Indiana. — The  personal  liability 
of  the  owner  to  a  material  man, 
given  by  Rev.  St.  1876,  p.  266, 
§  649,  and  the  lien  on  the  prop- 
erty accorded  by  §  650,  are  dis- 
tinct and  independent  remedies; 
and,  to  hold  the  owner  personally, 
a  notice  to  that  effect,  and  not  a 
notice  of  intention  to  create  a 
lien,  is  necessary.  Crawford  v. 
Crockett,  55  Ind.  220.  See  also 
Sultzer-Vogt  Mach.  Co.  v.  Rush- 
ville  Water  Co.,  160  Ind.  202,  62 
N.  E.   649,  65  N.  E.  583. 

Louisiana, — Stewart  v.  Christy, 
15   La.  Ann.  325. 

Mi'ssouri. — Kasper  v.  St.  Louis 
Terminal  Ry  Co.,  101  Mo.  App. 
323,  74  S.  W.  145. 

>'ew  Hampshire. — Bixby  v. 
W'hitcomb,  69  X.  H.  646,  46  Atl. 
1049;  Lawson  v.  Kimball,  68  N. 
H.  549,  38  Atl.  380. 

]Vew  Jersey. — Beckhard  v.  Ru- 
dolph,  68    N.    J.    Eq.    315.    59    Atl. 


183 


NOTICE  TO  OWNER. 


[§72 


quired  to  hold  the  owner  personally .^  Where  the  statute  re- 
quires the  contractor  to  give  the  owner  a  list  of  the  sub- 
contractors and  provides  a  penalty,  yet  the  failure  to  do  this 
does  not  relieve  the  subcontractor  from  giving  notice.'*  But 
if  the  statute  provides  that  the  owner  shall  not  pay  the  con- 
tractor, without  a  statement  of  the  subcontractor's  claims,  the 
owner  is  liable,  even  though  the  subcontractor  did  not  give  notice.^ 

§  73.  Notice  to  owner — Waiver. — If  the  owner  agrees  with 
the  contractor  to  pay  the  subcontractor,  then  the  subcontractor 
is  relieved  from  giving  notice,^  the  owner  in  this  manner  hav- 
ing waived  his  right."^  The  persons  who  have  the  right  to 
profit  by  the  giving  of  the  notice  are  those  mentioned  in  the 


253;  Bayonne  Building  Assn.  No. 
2  V.  Williams,  59  N.  J.  Eq.  617, 
43  Atl.  669;  Ter  Knile  v.  Reddick, 
(N.  J.  Eq.)    39   Atl.   1062. 

Nevada. — Coscia  v.  Kyle,  15  Nev. 
394. 

New  York. — Kenney  v.  Apgar, 
93  N.  Y.  539;  Whipple  v.  Chris- 
tian, 80  N.  Y.  523. 

Pennsylrania. — Mehl  v.  Fisher, 
13  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  330. 

Texas. — James  v.  St.  Paul's 
Sanitarium,  24  Tex.  Civ.  App.  664, 
60  S.  W.  322. 

3  Illinois.— Le  Forgee  v.  Colby, 
69   111.   App.   443. 

Michigan. — Lament  v.  La  Fevre, 
96  Mich.  175,  55  N.  W.  687. 

Missouri. — Squires  v.  Fithian, 
27  Mo.  134. 

Pennsylrania,  —  Appeal  of 
Stormfeltz,  135  Pa.  604,  19  Atl. 
950;  Appeal  of  Stoner,  135  Pa. 
604,  19  Atl.  949;  Compton  v.  San- 
key,  29  C.  C.  251,  13  Dist.  Pa.  535, 
7  Dauph.  Co.  Ct.  (Pa.)  215,  9 
North  281;  Hoopes  v.  Greer,  9 
Del.   Co.   Ct.    (Pa.)    162;    Mock  v. 


Roscoe,  9  Del.  Co.  Ct.  (Pa.)  286; 
C rider  v.  McCafferty,  13  Dist. 
(Pa.)  638. 

Ithode  Island. — Poole  v.  Fel- 
lows, 25  R.  I.  64,  54  Atl.  772. 

Soutli  Carolina. — Matthews  v. 
Monts,  61  S.  Car.  385,  39  S.  E. 
575.  Ohio  statute  requires  notice 
before  lien  can  be  on  property, 
§8L 

4  Pinkston  v.  Young,  104  N. 
Car.  102,  10  S.  E.  133;  see  §68, 
notes  13,  14. 

5  Keeley  Brewing  Co.  v.  Neu- 
bauer  Decorating  Co.,  194  111.  580, 
62   N.   E.  923. 

c  Ryndak  v.  Seawell,  13  Okla. 
737,  76  Pac.  170. 

"i  White  V.  Washington  School 
Dist.  42  Conn.  541.  Where  it  ap- 
pears that,  before  paying  the  con- 
tractor, the  owner  knew  of  a 
claim  for  a  lien  for  materials  fur- 
nished him,  and  required  him  to 
give  bond  of  indemnity  against 
it,  failure  of  the  material  man  to 
give  notice  of  his  claim  in  the 
time    and   manner   prescribed   by 


§/3] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


184 


statute.  Notice  by  others  will  not  acquire  for  them  such 
right. ^  And  all  conditions  precedent  must  have  been  complied 
with.9 

§  74.  Notice  to  owner — To  whom  given. — The  notice  should 
be  given  to  the  person  who  is  sought  to  be  held  responsible 
for  payment  of  the  claim,  and  this  means  the  owner  of  the 
property.^''  The  provisions  of  the  statute  regulate  this  matter 
and  must  be  complied  with.^^  Generally  the  notice  may  be 
given  to  an  agent,  if  it  is  properly  within  the  scope  of  the 
agent's  authority. ^^     It  cannot,  however,  be  made  upon  an  agent 


statute  will  not  defeat  it.  Padgitt 
V.  Dallas  Brick  &  Construction 
Co.,  Tex.  Civ.  App.,  51  S.  W.  529. 

8  Burst  V.  Jackson,  10  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  219;  see  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit. 
Mechanics'  Liens,  §  119. 

9  Mears  v.  Stubbs,  45  Iowa  675. 

10  Richards  v.  O'Brien.  173 
Mass.  332,  53  N.  E.  858;  Hall  v. 
Erkfitz,  125  Mich.  332,  84  N.  W. 
310;  Poole  v.  Fellows,  25  R.  I. 
64,  54  Atl.  772.  See  Estate  liable, 
sees.  10  and  11;  ownership,  sec. 
24. 

11  Where  the  title  to  certain 
property  was  in  a  Roman  Catho- 
lic Bishop,  and  the  priest  of  a 
church  within  his  diocese  em- 
ployed the  contractor  to  construct 
a  church  building  thereon,  one 
furnishing  materials  for  the  con- 
tract and  desiring  to  retain  a  lien 
therefor,  should  give  notice  to  the 
bishop,  and  not  the  priest,  under 
Code  1979.  Gross  v.  Butler,  72 
Ga.  187.  Under  Laws  1892,  c.  687, 
§  3,  constituting  school  districts 
municipal  corporations,  the  board 
of  education  of  the  city  of 
Brooklyn,  being  subject  to  the  du- 
ties     of      trustees      of      common 


schools,  and  vested  with  the  title 
to  all  school  property,  is  a  sepa- 
rate corporation  from  the  city  it- 
self; and  service  of  notice  of  me- 
chanics' liens  against  the  district 
(Laws  1878,  c.  315,  as  amended  by 
Laws  1892,  c.  629),  should  be 
made  on  the  city  treasurer,  as 
financial  officer  of  the  board.  Yel- 
low Pine  Co.  v.  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, 15  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  58,  36  N. 
Y.  Supp.  922. 

12  A  husband.  Peck  v.  Hensley, 
21  Ind.  344;  a  city  attorney, 
Ausbeck  v.  Schardien,  20  Ky. 
L.  178,  45  S.  W.  507;  Rim- 
mey  v.  Getterman,  63  Md.  424; 
a  bookkeeper,  Wiltsie  v.  Harvey, 
114  Mich.  131,  72  N.  W.  134. 
Evidence  that  a  person  acted  as 
agent  for  defendant  in  settling  a 
contract  for  building  a  house, 
and  in  making  some  payments 
thereon,  does  not  show  that  he 
was  agent  to  accept  a  notice  of  a 
mechanics'  lien.  Anderson  v. 
Volmer,  83  Mo.  403;  Smith-An- 
thony Stove  Co.  v.  Speer,  65 
Mo.  App.  87,  2  Mo.  App.  Rep'r. 
1250;  Shaw  v.  Bryan,  39  Mo.  App. 
523.    Under  Rev.  St.  3190,  requir- 


185 


NOTICE  TO  OWNER TO   WHOM  GIVEN. 


[§74 


if  the  statute  requires  it  to  be  made  on  the  "true  owner."^2a 
For  this  purpose,  the  person  who  is  the  owner  at  the  time  the 
lien  attached/^  is  the  person  to  whom  the  notice  should  be 
given. I'*  A  purchaser,  where  the  building  is  in  process  of  con- 
struction at  the  time  of  sale,  is  the  proper  person  to  whom  the 
notice  should  be  given. ^^  A  safer  rule,  however,  is  to  give 
notice  to  both  seller  and  buyer.^"  A  tenant  by  curtesy, 
where  it  is  sought  to  hold  his  interest, i"  or  executor,^^  or 
cestui  que  trust  may  properly  be  served.-*^  But  one  who  holds 
title  for  the  fraudulent  protection  of  another,  or  an  ofBcial  not 


ing  a  subcontractor  to  give  no- 
tice to  the  owner  or  agent  of  in- 
tention to  file  a  lien,  a  person 
charged  by  a  non-resident  owner 
with  the  duty  of  approving  all 
bills  or  demands  prior  to  their 
payment,  is  the  owner's  agent, 
on  whom  notice  may  be  served. 
Johnson  v.  Barnes,  etc.,  Bldg.  Co., 
23  Mo.  App.  546;  Henry  v.  Bun- 
ker,   22    Mo.    App.    650. 

Building  Committee. — The  re- 
quirement of  the  statute  that  no- 
tice of  a  claim  for  a  lien  shall 
be  served  on  the  owner  of  the 
building  or  his  agent  is  complied 
with  by  service  on  a  mem- 
ber of  a  building  committee 
of  an  unincorporated  society. 
Padgitt  V.  Dallas  Brick  &  Con- 
struction Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  51 
S.  W.  529;  see  also,  McCreary  v. 
Waco  Lodge  No.  70,  I.  O.  O.  F., 
2  Tex.  Unrep.  Cas.  (Posey)  675; 
Laev  Lumber  Co.  v.  Auer,  123  Wis. 
178,  101  N.  W.  425;  Pou  v.  Cov- 
ington, etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Ga.  311, 
10  S.  E.  744;  American  Car  & 
Foundry  Co.  v.  Alexandria  Water 
Co.,  215  Pa.  520,  64  Atl.  683. 


i2aBullard  v.  Dudley,  101  Ga. 
299,  28  S.  E.  845. 

13  Kuhleman  v.  Schuler,  35  Mo. 
142. 

14  Lefler  v.  Forsberg,  1  App.  D. 
C.  36. 

15  Rice  V.  Carmichael,  4  Colo. 
App.  84,  34  Pac.  1010;  Miller  v. 
Barroll,  14  Md.  173.  Where  mate- 
rials are  furnished  for  a  building 
under  a  contract  with  a  person 
holding  a  contract  to  purchase, 
but  who  had  no  title  to  the  land 
at  the  time,  and  the  contractor 
did  not  give  notice  in  writing  to 
the  owner  of  the  land  that  he  in- 
tended to  claim  a  lien  for  such 
materials,  as  required  by  Pub.  St. 
c.  191,  §  3,  he  was  not  entitled  to 
a  lien  as  against  a  mortgagee  of 
the  purchaser.  McDowell  v. 
Rockwood,  182  Mass.  150,  65  N.  E. 
65. 

ic  Porter  v.  Lively,  45  Ga.  159. 

1"  Meyer  v.  Christian,  64  Mo. 
App.  203,  2  Mo.  App.  Rep'r.  1060. 

IS  Bruner  Granitoid  Co.  v. 
Klein,  100  Mo.  App.  289,  73  S.  W. 
313. 

20  Lamb  v.  Campbell,  19  111. 
App.   (19  Bradw.)   272;  see  §28. 


§75] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


186 


within  the  scope  of  his  duties  is  not  a  proper  person.^i  Where 
the  contract  is  with  a  firm,  the  notice  should  be  given  to  the 
firm.22  However,  if  the  partnership  was  formed  after  the 
contract,  it  should  be  given  to  the  person  with  whom  the  con- 
tract was  made.23 

§  75.  Notice  to  owner — When  given. — The  notice  must  be 
given  within  the  time  limited  by  law,^  the  court  having  no 
power  to  extend  the  time  beyond  that  limit.-  The  owner,  how- 
ever, may  waive  it.^'i  If  the  statute  allows  the  notice  to  be 
given  within  ten  days  after  completion  and  the  contractor 
abandons  the  work,  the  notice  should  be  given  within  ten 
days  after  its  abandonment.^  And  if  the  notice  must  be  given 
within  twenty  days  after  payment  should  have  been  made,  it 
should  be  given  within  that  time  after  the  goods  are  delivered.* 
Usually  in  such  cases  notice  may  be  given  before  the 
expiration  of  the  time  limited,-^  but  not  if  the  statutes  direct 
otherwise.^  In  calculating  time,  it  is  reckoned  by  excluding 
the  first  day  and  counting  the  last,  counting  forward,'  or  back- 


2iBaltis  V.  Friend,  90  Mo.  App. 
408;  Terwilliger  v.  Wheeler,  81 
N.  Y.  Supp.  173,  81  App.  Div. 
460. 

22  Reindollar  v.  Plickinger,  59 
Md.  469. 

23  Lapenta  v.  Lettieri,  72  Conn. 
377,   44   Atl.  730. 

iDistrict  Colunibia. — Emack  v. 
Campbell,  14  App.  D.  C.  186. 

Illinois. — St.  Louis  Nat.  Stock 
Yards  v.  O'Reilly,  85  111.  546; 
O'Brien  v.  Graham,  33  111.  App. 
546. 

Missouri. — Patrick  v.  Ballen- 
tine,  22  Mo.  143. 

Ehode  Island. — Mo  wry  v.  Hill, 
14  R.  I.  504;  see  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  121. 


2Adler  v.  Lumley,  61  N.  Y. 
Supp.  688,  46  App.  Div.  229. 

2 a  Ombony  v.  Jones,  21  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  520. 

3  Basham  v.  Toors,  51  Ark.  309, 
11  S.  W.  282. 

■1  Weber  v.  Bushnell,  171  111. 
587,  49  N.  E.  728;  Metz  v.  Lowell, 
83  111.  565;  Kelly  v.  Kellogg,  79 
111.  477. 

5  Waterbury  Lumber  &  Coal  Co. 
V.  Coogan,  73  Conn.  519,  48  Atl. 
204;  Carey-Lombard  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Pullenwider,  150  111.  629,  37  N. 
E.  899. 

«  Catlin  V.  Douglass,  33  Fed. 
569. 

T  Hahn  v.  Dierkes,  37  Mo.  574; 
Schubert  v.  Crowley,  33  Mo.  564. 


187  NOTICE  TO  OWNER — WHEN  GIVEN.  [§  75 

ward.s  It  must  be  given  while  the  owner  has  funds  in  his 
hands  due  the  contractor,  according  to  the  original  contract.^ 
Even  if  notice  be  not  given  within  the  required  time,  and  the 
owner  still  has  funds  in  his  hand,  it  is  not  safe  for  the  owner 
to  pay  such  amount  to  the  principal  contractor.i'^  Under  the 
New  Jersey  law  before  notice  can  be  given  there  must  be  a 
demand  and  refusal  on  the  part  of  the  principal  contractor.^i 
Where  the  statute  says  that  the  notice  should  be  given  within 
a  certain  time  after  the  completion  of  the  subcontractor's  con- 
tract, it  should  be  given  with  reference  to  the  time  of  comple- 
tion of  the  principal  contract.^2  Generally  when  the  law  is 
changed,  and  the  new  law  extends  the  time,  the  notice  will  be 
given  in  time  if  within  the  extended  time,^^  the  law  as 
amended  controlling.^'*  In  calculating  time,  separate  jobs  or 
contracts  cannot  be  tacked  together,  the  notice  for  each  must 
be  within  the  time  limit  of  each.^^  But  if  it  is  all  one  continu- 
ous contract,  although  performed  at  different  times,  time 
would  begin  to  run  from  the  last  item.^^     Time  cannot  be  ex- 

8  Paterson  v.  St.  Thomas'  Maryland. — Hensel  v.  Johnson, 
Church,  18  R.  I.  349,  27  Atl.  449.      94  Md.  729,  51  Atl.  575;   Watts  v. 

9  Person  v.  Herring,  63  N.  J.  L.      Whittington,   48  Md.  353. 

599,     44     Atl.     753;     Donnelly    v.  Ehode  Island.— Newell  v.  Camp- 

Johnes,  58  N.  J.  Eq.  442,  44  Atl.  bell  Mach.  Co.,  17  R.  I.  74,  20  Atl. 

180.  158. 

10  First    Nat.    Bank    v.     Perris  Ontario. — Morris    v.    Tharle,    24 
Irr.  Dist,  107  Cal.  55,  40  Pac.  45;  Ont.    R.    159;    re    Moorehouse,    13 
Board     of     Education     v.     Blake,  Ont.  290;   see  §76,  note  9. 
(Cal.)  38  Pac.  536.  is  Hensel    v.    Johnson,    94    Md. 

11  Williams  v.  Bradford  (N.  J.  729,  51  Atl.  575;  Gurney  v.  Wal- 
Eq.),  21  Atl.  331;  see  §  76,  note  14.  sham,   16  R.   I.   698,   19   Atl.   323; 

12  Bassett  v.  Bertorelli,  92  otherwise  if  not  continuous; 
Tenn.  548,  22  S.  W.  423.  South  End  Imp.  Co.  v.  Harden,  (N. 

13  Pue  V.  Hetzell,  16  Md.  539;  J.  Eq.)  52  Atl.  1127;  Aubin  v.  Dar- 
Cole  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Falls,  92  Tenn.  ling^  26  R.  I.  469,  59  Atl.  390; 
607,  22  S.  W.  856.  whether    the    contract    was    con- 

14  Lane  v.  Thomas,  25  Ohio  tinuous  or  not  is  a  question  for 
Cir.    Ct.    303.  the  jury;   Treusch  v.  Shryock,  51 

15  Illinois.— Sheehan     v.     South  Md.  162. 
River  Brick  Co.,  Ill  Ga.  444,  36  S. 

E.  759. 


76] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


188 


tended  by  doing  minor  details. ^^     Long  interruptions  between 
items  must  be  explained. ^^ 

§  76.  Notice  to  owner — Form  and  requisites. — Statutes  do 
not  usually  prescribe  a  particular  form  of  notice,  but  where 
the  statute  says  that  the  notice  shall  contain  certain  things 
these  requirements  must  be  complied  with.^  The  failure  to 
do  so  will  be  fatal  to  the  lien.^  A  substantial  compliance,  how- 
ever, is  all  that  is  required.'^  In  the  absence  of  statutory  re- 
quirements on  the  subject  a  notice  which  shows  the  amount 
claimed,^  to  whom  furnished,  and  upon  what  the  improvement 
is  claimed,  is  usually  regarded  as  sufficient.^     A  statutory  re- 


1"  Sulzer-Vogt  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Rushville  Water  Co.,  160  Ind.  202, 
62  N.  E.  649,  65  N.  E.  583;  Her- 
mann V.  Martens,  87  Md.  725,  39 
Atl.  618. 

IS  Taylor  v.  Dall  Lead  &  Zinc 
Co.,  131  Wis.   348,  111  N.  W.   490. 

1  :\Ierritt  v.  Hopkins,  96  Iowa 
652,  65  N.  W.  1015;  Beckhard  v. 
Rudolph,  68  N.  J.  Eq.  315,  59  Atl. 
253;  see  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit. 
Mechanics'  Liens,  §  122;  see 
§§81  ,  82. 

2  Hess  V.  Poultney,  10  IMd.  257; 
Cameron  v.  Campbell,  141  Fed.  32, 
72  C.  C.  A.  520. 

3  The  requirement  that  said  no- 
tice shall  contain  "a  statement  of 
the  labor  performed  and  mate- 
rials furnished"  is  substantially 
complied  with  by  a  notice  stating 
that  the  lien  is  claimed  for 
"work,  labor  and  services  per- 
formed upon  said  building,  and 
sash,  doors,  blinds,  moulding,  and 
other  building  materials  sold  and 
delivered  to  be  used,  in  and  upon 
said  building  and  premises,  under 
said  agreement  with  said  prin- 
cipal  contractors   for   the    agreed 


price  of,"  etc.  Hausmann  Bros. 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Kempfert,  93  Wis. 
587,  67  N.  W.  1136;  doctrine  of 
variance  in  pleading  does  not  ap- 
ply; Star  Mill  &  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Porter,  4  Cal.  App.  470,  88  Pac. 
497. 

4  Illinois. — Hurtt  v.  Sanders 
Bros.  Mfg.  Co.,  99  111.  App.  655; 
Keefe  v.  Minehan,  93  111.  App. 
586;  Davis  v.  Rittenhouse,  92  111. 
App.  341. 

Washington. — Young  v.  Bor- 
zone,  26  Wash.  4,  55  Pac.  135,  421. 

Wisconsin. — Laev  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Auer,  123  Wis.  178,  101  N.  W. 
425;  Dusick  v.  Meiselbach,  118 
Wis.  240,  95  N.  W.  144.  It  is 
liberally  construed,  McNabb,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Paterson  Bldg.  Co.  (N. 
J.  Eq.)   63  Atl.  709. 

5  Oilman  v.  Gard,  29  Ind.  291; 
Simonds  v.  Buford,  18  Ind.  176; 
Grace  v.  Nesbitt,  109  Mo.  9,  18  S. 
W.  1118;  Towner  v.  Remick,  19 
Mo.  App.  205.  A  notice  of  claim 
for  lien  by  material  men  to  the 
owner,  that  "we — have  furnished 
to  your  contractor — certain  ma- 
terial   in    the    erection    of    your 


189 


NOTICE FORM    AND    REQUISITES, 


[§76 


quirement  that  the  notice  should  contain  a  just  and  true  ac- 
count, does  not  mean  that  it  should  be  itemized.*^  The  fact 
that  the  notice  is  addressed  to  other  persons  will  not  avoid  it, 
if  the  right  person  gets  it,  and  it  is  sufficient  to  put  him  upon 
guard  as  to  the  rights  of  the  partiesJ  Superfluous  statements, 
unless  misleading,  will  not  afifect  the  validity  of  the  notice. ^ 
If  the  work  is  done  under  difi^erent  contracts,  though  on  the 
same  plant,  one  notice  will  be  sufficient.^  However  if  there 
are  several  contracts,  all  included  in  one,  the  notice  should  be 
so  worded  that  what  is  due  on  each  can  be  determined. ^'^  The 
statute  need  not  be  referred  to  by  name  or  section. ^^  The 
statute  usually  requires  the  notice  to  be  in  writing,  and  where 
this  is  the  case  a  verbal  notice  will  not  suffice. i-  Where  the 
statute  does  not  require  the  notice  to  be  in  writing,  a  verbal 
notice  is  sufficient  only  if  it  is  of  such  a  character  that  the 
owner  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable  judgment  will  know  that 


building,  cor.  A.  Ave.  &  C.  St.  in 
Shelby  County,  and  bill  of  mate- 
rial— leaves  a  balance  of  $314.99," 
and  "rely  upon  our  lien  on  said 
building  for  payment  of  same," 
is  sufficient.  Bassett  v.  Bertorelli, 
92  Tenn.  548,  22  S.  W.  423;  Reeves 
V.  Henderson,  90  Tenn.  521,  18  S. 
W.  242;  Vitelli  v.  May,  120  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  448,  104  N.  Y.  Supp. 
1082. 

«  Grace  v.  Nesbitt,  109  Mo.  9,  18 
S.  W.  1118. 

7  Colorado  Iron  Works  v.  Tay- 
lor, 12  Colo.  App.  451,  55  Pac. 
942;  Trueblood  v.  Shellhouse,  19 
Ind.  App.  91,  49  N.  B.  47.  Under 
code,  art.  63,  §  11,  of  Maryland, 
providing  that  one  furnishing  ma- 
terials under  a  contract  with  a 
builder  should  be  entitled  to  a 
lien,  if  giving  within  a  specified 
time  a  notice  "in  writing  to  the 
owner,  of  his  intention  to  claim  a 


lien,"  a  written  notice  by  a  ma- 
terial man  to  the  owner  of  the 
building,  notifying  the  owner  of 
his  intention  to  claim  a  lien,  is 
sufficient,  though  also  addressed 
to  other  persons.  Hensel  v. 
Johnson.  94   Md.  729,   51  Atl.  575. 

8  Wambold  v.  Gehring,  109  Wis. 
122,  85  N.  W.  117. 

9  Hooven,  etc.,  Co.  v.  John 
Featherstone's  Sons,  111  Fed.  81, 
49  C.  C.  229;   see  §75,  note  15. 

i'>  Hurtt  V.  Sanders  Bros.  Mfg. 
Co.,  99  111.  App.  665;  Garner  v. 
Van  Patten,  20  Utah  342,  58  Pac. 
684. 

iiHausmann  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Kempfert,  93  Wis.  587,  67  N.  W. 
1136. 

12  Eastman  v.  Newman,  59  N. 
H.  581;  Seibs  v.  Englehardt,  78 
Ala.  508;  Jeure  v.  Perkins,  29 
Iowa  262;  Berry  v.  McAdams,  93 
Tex.  431,  55  S.  W.  1112. 


76] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


190 


a  claim  is  asserted. ^^  Under  the  New  Jersey  laws  the  notice 
must  show  that  there  was  a  demand  made  upon  the  contractor, 
and  refused  by  him.^'*  The  notice  ought  to  be  so  certain  as 
to  the  parties  to  be  bound  by  it,  that  they  will  know  that  there 
is  a  claim  asserted  against  them,  and  who  asserts  it.^^  If  a 
"detailed  statement,"i^  or  the  "amount  due  over  and  above  all 
payments  and  offsets"^"  or  "the  nature  and  kind  of  materials 
and  amount  claimed, "i*^  or  "the  amount  due  and  demanded, "^^ 
or  "a  sworn  statement"  is  required,  by  statute,  the  lien  will  be 


13  Quaack  v.  Schmid,  131  Ind. 
185,  30  N.  E.   514. 

14  Beckhard  v.  Rudolph,  68  N. 
J.  Eq.  315,  59  Atl.  253;  Flaherty 
\.  Atlantic  Lumber  Co.,  58  N.  J. 
Eq.  467,  44  Atl.  186;  see  §  75,  note 
11.  Where  a  material  man  pre- 
sented his  bill  to  the  contractor, 
stating  that  a  notice  was  to  be 
presented  to  the  owner,  and, 
though  there  was  some  talk  about 
the  examination  of  vouchers, 
there  was  no  claim  that  the  bill 
was  Incorrect  or  that  the  con- 
tractor offered  to  pay  it,  there 
was  sufficient  evidence  of  a  de- 
mand on  the  contractor  to  sup- 
port a  notice  to  the  owner.  Evans 
V.  Lower,  67  N.  J.  Eq.  232,  58  Atl. 
294;  Breneman  v.  Beaumont  Lum- 
ber Co.,  12  Tex.  Civ.  App.  517, 
34  S.  W.  198;  Beckhard  v.  Ru- 
dolph,   68   N.    J.   Eq.    740,    63    Atl. 

•705. 

15  Trammell  v.  Hudmon,  86  Atl. 
472,  6  So.  4.  A  notice  addressed 
to  the  "St.  Mary's  Female  Or- 
phan Asylum,"  and  handed  to  a 
sister  of  charity  who  opened  the 
door  of  the  building,  held  not 
sufficient  to  establish  a  mechanics' 
lien  against  "The  Sisters  of  Char- 
ity of  St.  Joseph."    Kenly  v.  Sis- 


ters of  Charity  of  St.  Joseph,  63 
Md.  306;  Putnam  v.  Ross,  55  Mo. 
116,  also  46  Mo.  337;  Bambrick  v. 
Webster  Groves  Presbyterian 
Church  Assn.,  53  Mo.  App.  225; 
Downey  v.  Higgs,  41  Mo.  App. 
215.  The  fact  that  a  notice  served 
on  an  officer  of  a  corporation, 
described  the  debtor  as  "B.  & 
P.,"  instead  of  the  "B.  &  P.  Pipe 
Co.,"  is  valid  where  otherwise 
correct.  Fruin-Bambrick  Const. 
Co.  V.  Jones,  60  Mo.  App.  1. 
Where  partners  do  the  work  it  is 
not  necessary  that  the  claim  state 
the  parties  are  partners  if  the 
claim  otherwise  shows  it.  Duck- 
wall  V.  Jones,  156  Ind.  682,  58  N. 
E.  1055,  60  N.  E.  797;  McNab,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Paterson  Bldg.  Co., 
(N.  J.  L.)    67  Atl.  103. 

ic  Green  v.  Robinson,  110  Ala. 
503,  20  So.  65;  Taylor  v.  Dall  Lead 
&  Zinc  Co.,  131  Wis.  348,  111  N. 
W.   490.   , 

1'  Davis  V.  Livingston,  29  Cal. 
283. 

18  Thomas  v.  Barber,  10  Md. 
380. 

19  Reeve  v.  Elmendorf,  38 
N.  J.  L.  125.  Under  New  Jer- 
sey law  it  was  held  void  if  the  no- 
tice stated  more  than  was  really 


191 


NOTICE DESCRIPTION — SERVICE. 


[§77 


void  if  the  notice  lacks  in  these  respects.^o  The  statute,  how- 
ever, need  not  be  followed  word  for  word.^^  Neither  will  it 
be  void  for  clerical  or  immaterial  errors.22  Where  the  re- 
quired statements  are  set  out  in  the  notice  the  question  wheth- 
er the  claim  is  false  or  true,  is  one  of  proof  on  foreclosure.^^ 

§  77.    Notice  to  owner — Description  of  property — Service. — 

As  a  matter  of  course,  in  seeking  to  fasten  a  lien  upon  certain 
property,  such  property  must  be  described,  but  a  technical 
description  is  not  required ;  all  that  is  necessary  is  that  it  be 
described  with  such  certainty,^  that  the  owner  may  know  what 
property  is  meant,  and  advise  him  of  the  lien  claim  thereon.^ 
The  general  rule  is  that  the  property  should  be  sufifiiciently  de- 
scribed to  identify  it.^     The  notice  must  show  for  whose  bene- 


due.  McPherson  v.  Walton,  42 
N.  J.  Eq.  282,  11  Atl.  21; 
but  not  if  he  claims  less;  Don- 
nelly V.  Johnes,  58  N.  J.  Eq.  442, 
44  Atl.  180;  Miller  v.  Calumet 
Lumber,  etc.,  Co.,  121  111.  App.  56; 
Tenth  Nat.  Bank  v.  Smith 
Const.  Co.,  218  Pa.  584,  67  Atl. 
874;  McNab,  &c.,  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Paterson  Bldg.  Co.  (N.  J.  Eq.), 
63  Atl.  709. 

20  Bender  v.  Stettinius,  10  Ohio 
Dec.  (Re)  186;  19  Wkly.  L.  Bull. 
163.  In  Ohio  the  contractor  can 
waive  the  affidavit.  Kennett  v. 
Rebholz,  6  Ohio  Dec.  (Re.)  824, 
8  Am.  L.  Rec.  354,  4  Wkly.  L. 
Bull.  959. 

21  Rhodes  v.  Webb- Jameson  Co., 
19  Ind.  App.  195,  49  N.  E.  283. 

22  Linck  V.  Johnson;  66  Pac. 
674,  134  Cal.  19  (without  opin- 
ion) ;  Botto  V.  Ringwald,  60  111. 
App.  415;  Albrecht  v.  C.  C.  Fos- 
ter Lumber  Co.,  126  Ind.  318,  26 
N.  E.  157;  Laswell  v.  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  46  Mo.  279. 


23  Whittier  v.  Blakely,  13  Ore. 
546,  11  Pac.  305.  A  stop  notice 
which  declares  that  certain  ma- 
terials were  furnished  to  the  con- 
tractor "for  and  in  the  erection" 
of  a  building,  sufficiently  shows 
that  the  materials  were  actually 
used  in  the  building.  Beckhard 
V.  Rudolph,  68  N.  J.  Eq.  740,  63 
Atl.   705. 

1  California, — Hotaling  v.  Cron- 
ise,   2   Cal.   60. 

Peunsylyania. — Maddocks  v.  Mc- 
Gann,  4  Lack.  J.  (Pa.)  34, 16  York 
184,  12  Dist.  (Pa.)  701;  Marker 
V.  Conrad,  12  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.) 
301;  Springer  v.  Keyser,  6  Whart. 
(Pa.)  186. 

Indiana. — Stephens  v.  Duffy, 
(Ind.  App.),  83  N.  E.  268;  see 
Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  mechanics' 
liens,  §§  122-126. 

2  Henry  v.  Plitt,  84  Mo.  237. 

3  Bambrick  v.  King,  59  Mo. 
App.  284.  Notice  of  a  mechanic's 
lien,  by  a  subcontractor  to  the 
owner  of  a  building,  must  be  in 


§  m 


PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


192 


fit  it  is  given  and  therefore  as  a  rule  the  statutes  require  it  to 
be  signed  by  the  lienor,  and  if  not  so  signed  it  is  generally  held 
invalid. "*  If  no  signature  of  lienor  is  required  by  statute,  then 
it  need  not  be  signed.  Even  where  it  is  required  to  be  signed, 
it  may  be  signed  by  the  authorized  agent  of  the  lienor  unless 
expressly -forbidden  by  statute.^  The  statute  usually  indicates 
how  the  notice  must  be  served  or  given,  and  if  it  directs  that 
it  must  be  given  personally,*^  it  would  not  be  valid  if  other- 
wise given  unless  it  is  shown  that  the  owner  actually  received 
it."  Unless  specifically  allowed  by  statute,  service  of  notice 
through  the  mails,^  or  upon  an  agent,^  or  trustee, ^"^  is  invalid. ^^ 
For  much  stronger  reasons  the  owner  cannot  be  bound  by 
a  notice  given  to  an  unauthorized  person. ^^  j^  jg  ^ot  necessary 
that  the  notice  be   served   bv  an   officer  ;^-^   the   material   fact 


writing;  and  a  notice,  althoiigli 
written,  but  with  no  name  signed 
to  it,  and  not  stating  from  wliom 
it  came  or  wlio  held  the  claim, 
is  not  sufficient,  nor  can  the  omis- 
sions be  supplied  by  evidence  of 
verbal  information  to  the  owner 
of  the  facts.  Schulenberg  v.  Bas- 
com,  38  i\Io.  188;  member  of  firm; 
Dwyer  Brick  Works  v.  Flanagan, 
87  Mo.  App.  340;  may  be  correct- 
ed; Stephens  v.  Duffy  (Ind.  App.), 
81  N.  E.  1154,  rehearing  denied, 
83  N.  E.  268. 

4  Carey-Lombard  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Fullenwider,  150  111.  629,  37  N.  E. 
899;  Wetenkamp  v.  Billigh,  27 
111.   App.   585. 

5  Treusch  v.  Shryock,  51  Md. 
162;  Williams  v.  Bradford  (N.  J. 
Eq.),   21   Atl.   331. 

6  Illinois. — Carney  v.  Tully,  74 
111.  375;  Peck  v.  Hinds,  68  111. 
App.   319. 

Missouri. — L.  H.  Rumsey  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Baker,  35  Mo.  App.  217; 
Ryan  v.  Kelly,  9  Mo.  App.  396. 


Wisconsin. — Dusick  v.  Meisel- 
bach,  118  Wis.  240,  95  N.  W.  144; 
Bank  v.  :Maples,  119  La.  41,  43  So. 
905. 

"  Hensel  v.  Johnson,  94  Md. 
729,  51  Atl.  575;  Meyer  v.  Chris- 
tian, 64  Mo.  App.  203,  2  Mo.  App. 
Rep'r.    1060. 

s  Carney  v.  Tully,  74  III.  375; 
Peck  V.  Hinds,  68  111.  App.  319; 
Blanchard  v.  Ely,  179  Mass.  586, 
61  N.  E.  218. 

9  Sanitary  Dist.  of  Chicago  v. 
Phoenix  Powder  Mfg.  Co.,  79  111. 
App.  36:  sufficient  authority; 
Greilick  Co.  v.  Rogers,  144  Mich. 
313,  107  N.  W.  885,  13  Det.  Leg. 
N.    161. 

1"  Grace  v.  Nesbitt,  109  Mo.  9, 
18  S.  W.  1118. 

iiWickham  v.  Monroe,  89 
Iowa  666,  57  N.  W.  434;  Grace  v. 
Nesbitt,  109  Mo.  9,  18  S.  W.  1118. 

12  Hensel  v.  Johnson,  94  Md. 
729,  51  Atl.  575. 

13  McGann    v.    Sloan,    74    Conn. 


193 


NOTICE SERVICE    OF. 


[§77 


being  that  the  party  intended  received  the  notice.^^  As  a 
general  rule,  service  may  be  made  by  copy.^-^  Where  the  right 
to  the  lien  depends  upon  the  giving  of  the  notice,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  the  lien  fails  if  no  notice  is  given, ^^  and  equity  will 
not  aid  the  claimant. ^^  As  a  general  rule,  the  notice  operates 
upon  the  conditions  existing  at  the  time  it  is  given,  taking 
into  consideration  the  statutes  relating  thereto.i^  It  is  to  be 
noted  in  this  connection  that  the  statutes  recognize  no  such 
thing  as  constructive  notice. ^^  Where  the  notice  is  properly 
given,  the  owner  is  bound  to  retain  whatever  is  in  his  hands, 
and  where  given  by  a  subcontractor,  if  the  contractor  has  no 
defense  and  no  others  are  entitled  to  share  therein,  the  effect  is 
to  work  an  appropriation  of  the  amount  to  the  benefit  of  the 
subcontractor,  and  must  be  paid  to  him.^^  Wliere  the  consti- 
tution gives  a  lien,  a  lien  may  exist  though  the  statute  be  not 
fully  complied  with.21 


726,  52  Atl.  405;  Carey-Lombard 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Thomas,  92  Tenn. 
587,  22  S.  W.  743;  Bassett  v. 
Bertorelli,  92  Tenn.  548,  22  S.  W. 
423. 

14  Fehling  v.  Goings  (N.  J.  Eq.), 
58  Atl.  642. 

15  Kelly  V.  Syracuse,  10  Misc. 
(N.   Y.)    306,   31   N.   Y.   Supp.   283. 

16  Torrance  v.  Bowton,  96  111. 
App.    475. 

17  Frolich  v.  Beecher,  139  Mich. 
278,  102  N.  W.  736,  11  Det.  Leg. 
N.   835. 

18  Robinson  v.  State  Ins.  Co.,  55 
Iowa  489,  8  N.  W.  314;  Taylor 
V.  Reed,  68  N.  J.  L.  178,  52  Atl. 
579;  Hayden  Saddlery  Hardware 
Co.  V.  Slade,  3  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  67,  2 
Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  38;  Hubbard  v. 
Lee,  6  Cal.  App.  602,  92  Pac.  744. 

19  Merritt  v.  Hopkins,   96   Iowa 


652;    Lonnsbury  v.   Iowa,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  49  Iowa  255. 

20  California.  —  San  Francisco 
Pav.  Co.  V.  Fairfield,  134  Cal.  220, 
66  Pac.  255. 

Illinois. — Brown  v.  Lowell,  79 
111.  484. 

New  Jersey.  —  Donnely  v. 
Johnes,  58  N.  J.  Eq.  442,  44  Atl. 
180. 

yevf  York. — Reeves  v.  Seitz, 
47  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  267,  62  N.  Y. 
Supp.  101;  Monteith  v.  Evans,  5 
N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  65. 

Ohio. — Busse  v.  Voss,  9  Ohio 
Dec.  441,  13  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  542; 
Cincinnati  v.  McNeely,  7  Ohio 
Dec.  216,  1  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  303. 

Texas. — Loonie  v.  Frank,  51 
Tex.  406. 

21  Delauney  v.  Butler,  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  55  S.  W.  752,see   §  79,  note  7. 


13 


§  78]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  194 

§  78.  Service  of  notice — Ohio  statute. — Section  3204  of  the 
Revised  Statutes  of  Ohio  provides  that  any  notice,  affidavit, 
or  copy  required  to  be  served  under  the  provisions  of  this 
chapter  may  also  be  served  by  the  sheriff  of  the  county  within 
which  the  person,  board  or  officer  sought  to  be  served  is  resi- 
dent, in  manner  and  form,  and  for  which  he  shall  be  entitled 
to  the  same  fees  as  provided  by  law  for  service  of  summons 
in  a  civil  action  for  money  only,  and  if  the  owner  of  property 
sought  to  be  subjected  to  a  lien  resides  without  the  state,  or  is 
beyond  the  reach  of  process,  notice  may  be  given  by  publica- 
tion as  in  civil  actions.-^ 

§  79.  Filing  contract — Notice. — The  necessity  of  filing  the 
contract  as  a  condition  to  the  lien  right,  has  been  previously 
cohsidered.i  Where  the  statute  requires  the  contract  to  be 
filed,2  or  recorded,^  this  provision  must  be  complied  with. 
The  purpose  of  the  requirement  is  to  give  all  concerned  full 
notice  of  the  claimant's  rights. ^  If  no  special  book  is  desig- 
nated in  which  it  should  be  filed,  or  recorded,  a  book  of  deeds 
has  been  held  sufficient.^  It  will  be  more  properly  filed  how- 
ever in  a  lien  record  of  some  kind,  unless  the  statute  other- 
wise provides.  A  copy  can  not  be  used  for  this  purpose.^ 
Where  the  constitution  gives  a  Hen,  and  the  statute  requires 
the  contract  to  be  filed,  the  neglect  to  file  in  such  a  case  will 
not  bar  the  right  of  the  claimant,  the  constitutional  provision 

22  99  Ohio  Laws  503.  4  Buck  v.  Brian,  2  How.  (Miss.), 

1  See  §  56.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  874;  superior  to  trust  deed;  Claes 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  127.  v.     Dallas     Homestead     &     Loan 

2  Buck  V.  Brian,  2  How  (Miss.)  Assn.,  83  Tex.  50,  18  S.  W.  421; 
874.  Cameron  v.  Marshall,  65  Tex.  7; 

3  Blinn  Lumber  Co.  v.  Walker,  Stimson  Mill  Co.  v.  Nolan,  5  Cal. 
129  Cal.  62,  61  Pac.  664;  Foster  v.  App.  754,  91  Pac.  262. 

Stone's    heirs,    20    Pick.     (Mass.)  5  Glading   v.   Frick,    88    Pa.    St. 

542;      Calvert     v.     McKinney,      2  460;     Boslej^    v.    Pease,    86    Tex'. 

Posey     (Tex.)     Unrep.    Cas.    345;  292,  22  S.  W.  516. 

laege  v.  Bossieux,  15  Gratt.   (Va.)  c  San  Francisco  Lumber  Co.  v. 

83,  76  Am.  Dec.  189.  O'Neill,  120  Cal.  455,  52  Pac.  728. 


195 


FILING  CONTEST NOTICE. 


[§79 


being  superior  to  the  statute^  Especially  will  this  be  true 
where  the  contract  stipulates  that  the  builder  shall  have  a 
lien.s  But  this  has  been  held  to  apply  only  to  the  principal 
contractor  and  not  between  subcontractors.^  If  the  contractor 
or  other  person,  whose  duty  it  is  to  file  a  contract,  is  pre- 
vented from  doing  so  by  the  wrongful  act  of  the  owner,  then 
the  owner  will  be  liable  as  though  the  contract  were  filed.^° 
However,  the  fact  that  the  contract  is  in  possession  of  the 
owner,  will  not  excuse  the  claimant  from  filing  it  as  provided 
by  statute.ii  Due  diligence  is  required  of  the  claimant  in  this 
respect;  if  he  has  not  the  original,  he  should  do  the  next  best 
thing  and  file  a  copy,^-  or,  in  extremity,  a  bill  of  the  items.^^ 


"  California, — West  Coast  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Knapp,  122  Cal.  79,  54 
Pac.  533. 

Texas. — D.  June  &  Co.  v.  Doke, 
35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  240,  80  S.  W. 
402;  Kahler  v.  Carruthers  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  45  S.  W.  160;  Strang  v. 
Pray,  89  Tex.  525,  34  S.  W.  666, 
35  S.  W.  1054;  Warner  Elevator 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Maverick,  88  Tex.  489, 
30  S.  W.  437,  31  S.  W.  353,  499; 
Phelps  &  Bigelow  Windmill  Co.  v. 
Parker  (Tex.),  30  S.  W.  365.  Un- 
der Const.  Art.  16,  37,  providing 
that  mechanics  and  material  men 
shall  have  a  lien  on  the  building 
made  thereon  or  material  fur- 
nished therefor,  and  that  the  leg- 
islature shall  provide  for  the 
speedy  and  efficient  enforcement 
of  said  lien,  as  against  the  owner 
an  original  contractor  who  per- 
forms labor  and  furnishes  ma- 
terial is  entitled  to  a  lien,  though 
he  does  not  record  his  contract 
or  account  as  provided  by  Rev. 
St.  1895,  Art.  3295.  Farmers*  and 
Mechanics'  Nat.  Bank  v.  Taylor, 
91  Tex.  78,  40  S.  W.  876;  see  also, 


Whiteselle  v.  Texas  Loan  Agency 
(Tex.),  27  S.  W.  309;  Lignoski  v. 
Crooker,  86  Tex.  324,  24  S.  W. 
278,  788;  Lyon  v.  Elser,  72  Tex. 
304,  12  S.  W.  177. 

8  D.  June  &  Co.  v.  Doke,  35 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  240,  80  S.  W.  402; 
Farrell  v.  Palestine  Loan  Ass'n 
(Tex.),  30  S.  W.  914. 

9  Cameron  v.  Terrell  (Tex.), 
36  S.  W.  142. 

10  McCormick  v.  Lawton,  3 
Neb.  449;  Strang  v.  Pray,  89  Tex. 
525,  34  S.  W.  666,  35  S.  W.  1054; 
Warner  Elevator  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Mav- 
erick, 88  Tex.  489,  30  S.  W.  437, 
31  S.  W.  353;  Warner  Elevator 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Houston  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  28  S.  W.  405. 

11  Warner  Elevator  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Houston  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  28  S. 
W.  405. 

12  Parks  V.  Tipple  (Tex.),  34  S. 
W.  676. 

13  What  is  a  written  contract. — 
Where  a  contract  was  contained 
in  an  offer  in  writing  and  an  ac- 
ceptance by  telegram,  one  claim- 
ing   a    mechanic's    lien    under    it 


§  80]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  196 

§  80.  Filing  claim  or  statement. — The  giving  of  notice  con- 
sidered in  the  previous  sections  is  usually  required  in  cases 
where  a  person  not  under  direct  contract  with  the  owner  seeks 
either  to  hold  the  property  responsible  for  a  lien  that  might 
thereafter  be  perfected  or  to  fasten  a  personal  responsibility 
on  the  owner.  As  a  general  rule  such  notice  does  not  of  itself 
fasten  a  lien  on  the  property  of  the  owner,  and  when  either 
a  contractor  or  subcontractor  seeks  to  hold  the  property  re- 
sponsible for  his  claim,  and  fasten  a  lien  thereon,  he  must  file 
a  claim,  statement  or  affidavit,  as  it  is  called  in  various  statutes 
and  decisions,  in  the  manner  and  place  designated  by  the  stat- 
ute. The  object  and  purpose  of  this  requirement  is,  to  compel 
the  claimant,  within  a  reasonable  time  after  the  work  is  com- 
pleted, to  elect  whether  or  not  he  will  attempt  to  enforce  a 
lien  on  the  premises,  and  if  he  does  wish  to  maintain  a  lien  then 
notice  in  this  manner  will  be  given  to  all  parties  dealing  with 
the  owner,  such  as  purchasers,  or  incumbrancers  of  the  prop- 
erty, of  the  fact  that  there  is  a  lien  claim  thereon.  As  a  gen- 
eral rule  it  may  be  stated  that  the  mere  furnishing  of  labor  or 
materials  for  certain  property  or  a  decree  of  court  in  fore- 
closure will  not  fasten  a  mechanic's  lien  on  property.^  The 
only  way  in  which  a  lien  can  be  fastened  on  the  property  is  by 
complying  with  the  statute,  and  when  the  statute  so  requires, 
by  properly  filing  a  statement  or  claim. 2     This  fact,  therefore, 

who   had   possession   of   the   tele-  1  Wilson    v.    Hopkins,    51    Ind. 

gram  only,  while  the  owner  of  the  231;     Carson     v.     White,     6     Gill 

building    had    the    offer,    did    not  (Md.)     17;     Cameron    v.     Terrell 

"have"  a  written  contract,  within  (Tex.    Civ.   App.),   36   S.   W.   142; 

the  meaning  of  Rev.  Civ.  St.  Act.  Mayes  v.  Ruffuers,  8  W.  Va.  384; 

3165,    providing   that,    if   the    lien  see  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechan- 

claimant  "have"  no   written  con-  ics'  Liens,  §  128. 

tract,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  file  2  California, — AValker  v.  Hauss- 

an  itemized  account  of  the  claim.  Hijo,  1  Cal.  183. 

Warner     Elevator     Mfg.     Co.     v.  Illinois. — Campbell  v.  Jacobson, 

Maverick,   88   Tex.   489,   30   S.   W.  145   111.  389,  34  N.  E.  39. 

437;   Riter  v.  Houston  Oil  Refin-  Indiana. — Pifer      v.      Ward.      S 

ing  &  Mfg.  Co.,  19  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Blackf.    (Ind.)    252;    Robinson    v. 

516,  48  S.  W.  758.  Marney,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.)  329. 


197 


FILING  CLAIM   OR  STATEMENT. 


80 


becomes  a  jurisdictional  one  in  the  foreclosure  of  the  lien,^ 
and  no  action  will  lie  until  a  compliance  with  the  statute  in 
this  respect  is  shown.'*  A  court  of  equity  cannot  give  relief, 
where  there  is  a  failure  in  this  respect,  even  though  the  equities 
of  the  parties  are  otherwise  strong.^  Under  some  statutes  it 
is  sufficient  as  to  the  owner,  if  the  statement  is  filed  with  the 
petition  to  foreclose.*^  And  under  others,  it  is  held  that  when 
only  the  owner  is  afifected,  no  statement  at  all  need  be  filed.''' 
The  same  strictness  is  not  required  between  the  original  part- 
ies as  in  cases  where  the  rights  of  third  persons  intervene.^ 
Where  the  rights  of  third  parties  are  involved  neither  the 
fact  that  the  work  is  stopped  by  default  of  the  owner,^  nor 
the  appointment  of  a  receiver  for  the  property,  will  excuse  a 
compliance  with  the  statute. ^^  Some  courts  demand  a  strict 
compliance  with  the  statute,^*  while  others  are  satisfied  .with 


Iowa. — Breneman  v.  Harvey,  70 
Iowa  479,  30  N.  W.  846. 

Michigan. — Sisson  v.  Holcomb, 
58  Mich.  634,  26  N.  W.  155. 

Nebraska. — Noll  v.  Kenneally, 
37  Neb.  879,  56  N.  W.  722. 

Jfew  York. — Tommasi  v.  Archi- 
bald, 114  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  838, 
100   N.  Y.   Supp.   367. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Armstrong  v. 
Hallowell,  35  Pa.  St.  485. 

Virginia.  —  Boston  v.  Chesa- 
peake, &c.,  R.  Co.,  76  Va.  180. 

3  Davis  V.  MacDonough,  109 
Cal.  547,  42  Pac.  450;  Sanderson 
V.  Fleming,  37  Mo.  App.  595;  Tid- 
ball  V.  Holyoke,  70  Neb.  726,  97 
N.  W.  1019;  Gilmer  v.  Wells,  17 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  436,  43  S.  W.  1058. 

■1  Illinois. — Christian  v.  Allee, 
104  111.  App.  177;  Whitlow  v. 
Champlin,  52  111.  App.  644;  Naugh- 
ten  V.  Palmer,  46  111.  App.  574. 

Minnesota. — Meyer  v.  Berlandi, 
39  Minn.  438,  40  N.  W.  513,  12  Am. 
St.  663,  1  L.  R.  A.  777. 


IVebraska. — Cummins  v.  Vande- 

venter,  52  Neb.  478,  72  N.  W.  955. 
Pennsylvania, — Lewis     v.    Mor- 
gan, 11  Serg.  &  R.   (Pa.)   234. 

5  Withrow  Lumber  Co.  v.  Glas- 
gow Inv.  Co.,  106  Fed.  363,  45  C. 
C.  A.  321. 

6  Anderson  v.  Seamans,  49  Ark. 
475,  5  S.  W.  799. 

7  Berndt  v.  Armknecht,  50  111. 
App.  467;  Moore  v.  Parrish,  50 
111.  App.  233;  Maxwell  v.  Koeritz, 
35  111.  App.  300.  Contra  Chris- 
tian V.  Allee,  104  111.  App.  177. 

8  Hopes  V.  Bale,  105  Iowa  648, 
75  N.  W.  495;  Evans  v.  Tripp,  35 
Iowa  371;  Kidd  v.  Wilson,  23 
Iowa  464;  Reeves  v.  Henderson, 
90  Tenn.    521,  18  S.  W.  242. 

9  Merchants',  etc.,  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Dashiell,  25  Gratt.   (Va.)    616. 

10  Withrow  Lumber  Co.  v.  Glas- 
gow Inv.  Co.,  101  Fed.  863,  42  C. 
C.  A.  61. 

11  Long  V.  Pocahontas  Coal  Co., 
117  Ala.  587,  23  So.  526. 


§  80]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  198 

a  substantial  compliance.^-  Unless  the  statute  makes  a  reser- 
vation to  that  eiTect  the  lien  abates  with  the  death  of  the 
owner  and  the  mechanic  stands  in  the  same  position  as  other 
debtors. ^^  Generally  where  the  law  has  been  changed,  the  stat- 
ute in  force  at  the  time  the  statement  is  filed  controls. ^"^  Under 
some  statutes  where  a  subcontractor  properly  files  his  state- 
ment, others  in  the  same  class  will  be  allowed  to  participate 
and  share  pro  rata.^^ 

§  81.  Lien  of  principal  contractor — How  acquired — Ohio 
statute. — Section  3185  of  the  Ohio  statute  provides:  Such 
person,  in  order  to  obtain  such  lien,  shall  within  four  months 
from  the  time  of  completion  of  such  labor,  or  furnishing  such 
machinery,  material  or  fuel,  file  with  the  recorder  of  the  county 
where  the  labor  was  performed,  or  the  machinery  or  the  ma- 
terial or  fuel  furnished,  an  affidavit  containing  an  itemized 
statement  of  the  value  and  amount  of  such  labor,  machinery, 
material  or  fuel,  and  a  description  of  any  promissory  note  or 
notes  given  for  such  labor,  machinery,  material  or  fuel,  or 
any  part  thereof,  with  all  credits  or  offsets  therein,  a  copy  of 
the  contract,  if  it  is  in  writing,  a  statement  of  the  amount  and 
times  of  payments  to  be  made  thereunder  and  a  description  of 
the  land  on  which  the  gas  well,  oil  well,  or  other  wells  are 
situated,  or  the  land  on  which  the  house,  mill,  furnace,  manu- 
factory, or  other  building  or  appurtenance,  fixture,  bridge,  or 
other  structure  may  stand,  or  to  which  it  may  be  removed,  or 
on  which  such  tile  for  drainage  purposes  may  have  been  used; 
and  the  same  shall  be  recorded  in  a  separate  book  to  be  kept 
therefor,  and  shall  operate  as  lien  from  the  date  of  the  first 
item  of  the  labor  performed,  or  the   machinery,   material  or 

12  Ficklin  v.  McCarty,  54  Tex.  made.  Tabor-Pierce  Lumber  Co. 
370.  V.     International     Trust     Co.,     19 

13  Dobbs  V.'  Enearl,  4  Wis.  451  Colo.  App.  108,  75  Pac.  150. 
(471).  15  Kennett   v.    Rebholz,    6    Ohio 

1-1  Small  V.  Foley,  8  Colo.  App.      Dec.    (Re.)    824,  4  WTily.  L.  Bull. 
435,   47   Pac.  64.     In  other  cases,      959,  8  Am.  L.  Rec.  354. 
it  is  the  law  when  the  contract  is 


199  PRINCIPAL   CONTRACTOR OHIO   STATUTE.  [§  81 

fuel  furnished,  upon  or  toward  the  property,  designated  in 
section  3184,  and  the  interest  of  the  owner  in  the  lot,  or  land 
upon  which  the  same  may  stand,  or  to  which  it  may  be  re- 
moved, for  six  years  from  and  after  the  date  and  of  the  filing 
of  such  attested  statement.  If  any  action  be  brought  to  en- 
force such  lien  within  that  time,  the  same  shall  continue  in 
force  until  the  final  adjudication  thereof;  and  there  shall  be 
no  homestead  or  other  exemption  against  any  lien  under  the 
provisions  of  this  chapter.  Such  person  so  filing  the  affidavit 
herein  provided,  shall  within  thirty  days  thereafter,  notify  the 
owner  of  the  property,  his  agent  or  attorney  that  he  claims 
such  lien,  and  if  he  fail  to  do  so,  the  lien  so  secured  shall  be 
null  and  void.^^ 

Section  3187  relates  to  the  mode  of  obtaining  the  lien  for 
labor  on  and  materials  for  roads,  ditches,  etc.,  promissory 
notes,  record,  extent  and  duration  of  such  lien.  It  provides 
that  in  order  to  obtain  such  lien,  such  person  shall,  within  four 
months  from  the  time  of  performing  the  labor  or  furnishing 
the  material  or  machinery,  file  with  the  recorder  of  the  county 
where  such  labor  was  performed  or  material  or  machinery 
furnished,  an  affidavit  containing  an  itemized  statement  of  the 
amount  and  value  thereof,  and  a  description  of  any  promissory 
note  or  notes  given  for  the  same,  or  any  part  thereof,  an  esti- 
mate of  the  amount  chargeable  to  each  foot  front  along  the  line 
of  the  improvement,  and  if  the  contract  is  made  with  several 
owners,  a  description  of  the  land  of  each,  with  the  number  of 
feet  belonging  to  each  abutting  on  such  line,  a  copy  of  the 
contract,  if  it  is  in  writing,  and  if  not  in  writing,  a  statement 
of  the  amount  and  time  of  payments  to  be  made  thereunder, 
which  shall  be  recorded  in  a  separate  book  to  be  provided 
therefor,  and  shall  operate  as  a  lien  on  the  interest  of  such 
delinquent  in  the  abutting  land  from  the  day  of  the  first  item 
of  labor  done  or  material  furnished,   for  one  year  from   and 

ic  99  Ohio  Laws  500. 


§81]  PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN.  200 

after  the  filing  of  such  statement,  and  if  an  action  is  brought  to 
enforce  the  lien  within  that  time,  it  shall  continue  in  force  un- 
til finally  adjudicated.^' 

1.     Who  can  file. 

"Such  person"  referred  to  in  the  above  section,  means  the 
same  as  "any  person"  referred  to  in  Section  3184.  The  per- 
formance of  the  things  set  forth  in  the  statute  are  essential  in 
order  to  create  a  lien  on  the  property.  It  bears  more  of  the 
characteristics  of  a  remedial  statute,  than  of  a  substantive  one, 
and  while  it  is  necessary  that  the  requirements  of  the 
statute  be  substantially  followed,  yet  the  construction  placed 
thereon  will  be  of  a  liberal  character  rather  than  otherwise. 
While  liberality  should  be  exercised  in  construing  the  rights 
of  a  mechanic's  lien  where  it  has  once  attached,  it  must  be 
strictly  followed  in  securing  the  lien.^  If  "such  person"  should 
die,  his  administrator  or  executor  may  file  the  claim.  Section 
3185,  relates  only  to  the  lien  on  the  property,  by  a  principal 
contractor.  It  wall  not  afifect  the  rights  of  a  subcontractor, 
or  the  remedy  of  a  principal  contractor  were  he  to  bring  an 
action  on  the  debt. 

2.     When  to  be  Hied. 

The  statute  requires  the  lien  to  be  filed  within  four  months 
from  the  time  of  the  completion  of  such  labor  or  the  furnish- 
ing of  machinery,  material  or  fuel.  It  must  be  after  and  not 
before  the  work  is  done.  In  making  such  calculation,  calendar 
and  not  lunar  months  are  meant.^  And  in  computing  the  time, 
the  first  day  is  excluded,  and  the  last  included,  and  if  the  last 

17  Act    Mar.    5,    1887,    84    Ohio  C.    C.    80,    affirmed     (unrep.)     74 

Laws   46,   47,   Rev.    St.    §  1880,    74  Ohio  St.  497,  78  N.  E.  1130. 

Ohio  Laws  168,  §  4.  2  McMurchey    v.     Robinson,     10 

1  Lapham  v.  Ransford,  27   Ohio  Ohio  496. 


201  PRINCIPAL   CONTRACTOR OHIO   STATUTE.  [§  81 

falls  on  Sunday,  it  is  excluded.^  The  completion  of  the  labor, 
means  that  the  job  or  the  part  which  the  contractor  agreed 
to  do,  has  been  performed.  So  far  as  the  principal  contractor 
is  concerned,  material  or  machinery  would  be  considered  as 
furnished  when  he  places  the  same  in  the  building,  to  the  use 
or  purpose  to  which  it  was  contemplated  by  the  contract  be- 
tween himself  and  the  owner.  Some  difficulty  is  experienced 
sometimes  in  determining  the  question  of  the  completion  of 
the  labor,  or  the  furnishing  of  the  material  where  the  same  is 
not  all  done  or  furnished  at  one  time.  Then  the  question  would 
be,  whether  the  contract  was  entire  or  whether  the  work  was 
done  and  materials  furnished  on  separate  and  independent  con- 
tracts. Our  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  where  the  contract 
was  with  a  railroad  company  to  erect,  build  and  complete,  fur- 
nishing all  materials,  for  bridges  remaining  to  be  built  upon 
the  line  of  its  road  between  two  points  specified,  therein  it  was 
an  entire  contract.'*  So  in  another  case,  where  the  builder 
came  to  a  material  man  with  a  memorandum  of  materials,  then 
needed,  and  desired  prices  on  them,  adding  that  he  was  going 
to  build  several  houses,  and  that  he  wanted  the  material  man 
to  furnish  the  lumber,  the  contract  was  held  to  be  entire,  and 
the  lien  in  time,  if  dating  from  the  last  delivery. -^  But  two  dis- 
tinct accounts  cannot  be  tacked  together  to  make  a  continuous 
account.^  In  such  cases,  each  must  be  secured  by  a  lien,  dating 
from  the  last  item  of  each  account."  Where  the  material  is 
furnished  under  what  may  be  considered  a  running  account, 
if  under  a  contract  express  or  implied,  that  such  material  is  to 
be  furnished  for  certain  improvements,  then  it  is  in  time,  if 
dated  from  the  last  item.  It  is  not  sufficient,  however,  where 
no  other  contract  is  shown  except  such  as  is  implied  from  the 

3  Bushong  V.  Graham,  4  Ohio  C.  c  King  v.   Cleveland   Ship  Bldg. 
C.  138,  2  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  464.  Co.,  50  Ohio  St.  320  34  N.  E.  436. 

4  Smith  Bridge  Co.  v.  Bowman,  "  Hazard  Powder  Co.  v.  Loomis, 
41  Ohio  St.  37,  52  Am.  Rep.  67.  13  Ohio  Dec.   (Re.)   333,  2  Disney 

->  Kunkle  v.  Reeser,  5  Ohio  Dec.       (Ohio)  544;  Gibbons  v.  Brewer,  37 
422,  5  Ohio  N.  P.  401.  Ohio  L.  Bull  90,  1  0.  S.  U.  554. 


§81]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT   LIEN.  202 

running'  of  mutual  accounts  between  the  parties  for  many 
years. ^  The  time  of  filing  cannot  be  extended  by  attaching  one 
lien  to  another,  or  by  the  addition  of  an  item  after  the  work 
has  been  completed.^  If  additional  work  was  an  essential  part 
of  the  contract,  and  has  been  omitted  through  inadvertence  or 
neglect,  and  no  one  is  prejudicially  affected  thereby,  the  lien 
may  be  taken  within  the  time  fixed  by  statute  dating  from  such 
additional  work.  If  the  parties  agree  that  the  work  is  com- 
pleted, the  period  will  date  from  that  time.  The  claim  must 
be  filed  after  and  not  before  the  completion  of  the  building,  or 
furnishing  of  material.  Under  a  contract  wherein  it  was  pro- 
vided that  certain  machinery  was  to  be  delivered,  F.  O.  B. 
cars,  at  a  designated  place,  it  would  be  considered  as  fur- 
nished within  the  meaning  of  the  statute  at  the  time  it  was 
so  delivered  on  the  cars.^°  Where  material  is  to  be  furnished 
for  the  acceptance  of  an  engineer  or  superintendent,  the  time 
dates  from  such  acceptance. ^^  If  the  items  are  so  far  apart 
that  it  cannot  be  considered  as  one  account  the  time  will  not 
commence  with  the  first  item. 12 

3.     JVhere  to  be  filed. 

The  lien  must  be  filed  with  the  Recorder  of  the  County 
in  which  is  located  the  structure  or  improvement,  including  the 
lot  of  land  upon  which  it  is  situated.  The  fact  that  the  labor 
was  done  in  another  county  would  make  no  difference. ^^  If 
work  or  labor  is  furnished  upon  property  which  includes  land 
in  two  counties,  in  order  to  make  it  eftective  on  the  land  in 
both  counties,  the  lien  must  be  filed  in  each  county,  otherwise, 

8  Portsmouth  Iron  Co.  v.  Mur-  10  Ohio  Dec.  545,  8  Ohio  N.  P. 
ray,  38  Ohio  St.  323.  517. 

9  Hazard  Powder  Co.  v.  Loomis,  12  Meridian  Nat.  Bank  v.  Mc- 
13  Ohio  Dec.  (Re.)  333,  2  Disney  Conica,  4  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  106,  8 
(Ohio)    544.  Ohio  C.  C.  442. 

10  King  V.  Cleveland  Ship  Bldg.  is  phoenix  Furniture  Co.  v. 
Co.,  50  Ohio  St.  320,  34  N.  E.  436.       Put-in-Bay  Hotel  Co.,  9  Ohio  Fed. 

11  Franklin  Bank  v.  Cincinnati,       Dec.  2,  66  Fed.   683. 


203  LIEN  OF  PRINCIPAL  CONTRACTOR — OHIO  STATUTE.         [§  81 

only  the  land  can  be  sold  in  satisfaction  of  the  lien  which  lies 
in  the  county  where  the  lien  is  filed,  for  the  lien  cannot 
operate  beyond  the  limits  of  the  county  in  which  it  is  filed. ^^ 

5.     Affidavit. 

No  particular  form  of  the  statement  is  required,  so  long  as 
it  contains  the  essentials  provided  for  in  the  statute.  In  ad- 
dition to  the  matters  specifically  stated  in  the  statute,  the 
claim  should  contain  the  names  of  the  contractor  and  the 
owner  of  the  property.  These  things  would  necessarily  fol- 
low from  the  stating  of  the  contract.  An  affidavit  is  defined  to 
be  a  declaration  under  oath,  reduced  to  writing  and  affirmed 
or  sworn  to  by  affiant  before  some  person  who  has  authority 
to  administer  oaths. ^^  And  perhaps  any  form  would  be  held 
sufficient  which  would  show  on  its  face  that  the  essentials  re- 
quired by  the  statute,  have  been  sworn  to  by  the  party  claim- 
ing the  lien. 

6.     Verification  of  affidavit. 

This  affidavit  may  be  made  by  the  person  furnishing  the  la- 
bor himself,  or  where  they  claim  it  as  a  partnership,  by  a 
partner,  or  by  an  officer  of  a  corporation,  or  by  any  duly  author- 
ized agent. ^'^  It  may  be  made  by  an  assignee  for  the  benefit  of 
creditors,^^  or  by  any  one  who  knows  the  facts  and  has  author- 
ity from  the  claimant.  The  affidavit  should  not  be  made  on  be- 
lief, but  should  be  sworn  to  as  a  fact.^^  If  not  so  sworn  to,  it  is 
a  nullity.  The  fact,  however,  that  the  officer  administering  the 
oath  failed  to  attach  his  seal,  will  not  vitiate  the  lien,  as  gen- 
erally considered,  an  attested  account,  and  a  sworn  account,  are 
synonymous  terms.^*^ 

i4Marlatt   v.    Hascall,    13    Ohio  (Ohio)    430,  13     Ohio     Dec.    (Re.) 

Dec.   364.  264. 

i«  Cyc.  Vol.  2,  page  4.  lo  Bender      v.      Stettinius,      19 

17  St.  Clair  Bldg.  Assn.  v.  Hayes,  Ohio  L.  Bull.  163,  10  Ohio  Dec. 
2  Ohio  C.  C.  225,  1  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  (Re.)  186. 

456.     See  §  119,     Verification     of  20  Kennett   v.   Rebholz,    4    Ohio 

Claim.  L.  Bull.  959,  8  Am.  L.  Rec.  354,  6 

18  Williams  v.  Webb,  2  Disney      Dec.   (Re.)   824,  7  Dec.   (Re.)   685. 


§81]  PROCEEDINGS  TO   PERFECT   LIEN.  204 

7.     Itemized  statement. 

There  are  four  essentials  that  the  affidavit  must  contain, 
first  of  which  is  "an  itemized  statement  of  the  value  and 
amount  of  such  labor,  etc."  A  standard  authority.  Swan's 
Treatise,  §  616,  states  this  to  mean  that  the  account  should  be 
made  out  in  the  usual  form  of  rendering  an  account,  and  when 
a  mechanic  undertakes  and  completes  a  building  as  an  entire 
job  for  a  gross  sum,  it  is  not  necessary  to  make  a  detailed  state- 
ment of  the  material  and  labor,  but  that  the  entire  job  may 
be  set  down  as  a  single  item.^i  As  a  general  rule,  it  may  be 
said  that  the  items  composing  the  labor  or  the  material,  when 
they  are  not  furnished  under  a  job  contract,  should  be  set  out 
in  detail,  giving  the  date  when  furnished,  and  the  price  of  the 
article  or  labor  furnished  on  that  date  in  ordinary  bookkeep- 
ing style. 

In  Davis  v.  Hines,  6  Ohio  St.  473,  the  account  was  as  fol- 
lows : 

"May  24,  1849. 
"Mr.  Stephen  Davis,  debtor  to  Jacob  Hines,  doing  carpenter 
work,  etc.,  at  house  in  Mount  Washington: 

"Carpenter  work $510.00 

"To  painting  and  fitting  sash  @  Ay^ 17.74 

"Agreed  on  by  us $527.74 

(Signed.)     "Jacob  Hines. 

"Stephen  Davis." 

This  was  held  to  be  sufficient. 

In  another  Ohio  case  (Thomas  v.  Huesman>  10  Ohio  St.  152), 
the  account  was  as  follows : 

"L.  Huesman  to  J.  Harvey  Thomas,  Dr.  185-1 — September  22: 
"To  carpenter  work  on  house  as  measured $951.05" 

This  was  held  sufficient. 

21  See    §116,    Itemized   Account. 


205  PRINCIPAL  CONTRACTOR OHIO   STATUTE.  [§  81 

In  both  of  these  cases,  the  work  was  done  under  a  job  con- 
tract. In  the  latter  case  a  mistake  in  claiming  $60.00  more 
than  was  actually  due,  did  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  state- 
ment. As  a  general  rule,  an  inaccuracy  in  the  account,  which 
was  not  intended  to  work  a  fraud,  and  which  did  not  actually 
do  so,  will  not  aft'ect  the  validity  of  the  lien.  The  same  thing  is 
true,  if  non-lienable  items  are  mixed  up  with  the  lienable  ones, 
provided  they  can  be  separated.  If  it  is  impossible  to  separate 
them,  the  entire  lien  is  void.  Thus,  where  steel  is  furnished, 
it  is  void  because  itemized  as  merchandise.22  If  any  payments 
have  been  made,  or  there  are  any  proper  credits  on  the  account, 
these  must  be  given. 

8.     Promissory  note. 

The  second  requirement  of  the  affidavit  is,  that  it  contain 
a  description  of  "any  promissory  note  given  for  labor,"  etc., 
"with  all  credits  and  off-sets  thereon."  This  provision  was 
placed  in  the  statute,  no  doubt,  from  the  fact  that  some  of  our 
courts^^  had  held  that  the  taking  of  a  promissory  note  was  a 
waiver  of  the  lien,  especially  as  to  the  amount  evidenced  by  the 
note.  Whether  or  not  the  court  would  hold  that  an  omission  to 
give  z  copy  of  the  note,  as  now  required,  would  merely  affect 
the  lien  pro  tanto  as  to  such  an  amount  as  is  covered  by  the 
note  or  destroy  the  entire  lien,  has  not,  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  writer,  been  decided.  It  seems,  however,  that  there  may 
be  other  reasons  considered  by  the  legislature,  and  that 
if  such  a  statement  were  omitted,  the  validity  of  the  entire 
lien  will  be  questionable.  The  better  holding  now  is,  that 
the  taking  of  a  promissory  note,  unless  there  be  an  express 

22  Great  Southern  Fireproof  Ho-      Fed.    Dec.   337,   193   U.   S.   532,   24 
tel  Co.  V.  Jones,  13  Ohio  Fed.  Dec.      Sup.  Ct.  576,  48  L.  ed.  778. 
727,  116  Fed.  793;  54  C.  C.  A.  165,  23  Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  Sowden, 

affirmed,     Great     Southern     Fire-       55  Ohio  St.  332,  45     N.     E.     320; 
proof  Hotel  Co.  v.  Jones,  14  Ohio      Crooks  v.  Finney,  39  Ohio  St.  57; 

Merrick  v.  Boury,  4  Ohio  St.  60. 


§81]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  206 

agreement    that    the    note    is   received    in   payment,   is    not   a 
waiver,24  though  given  for  the  amount  due.^^ 

9.     Contract — Copy  of. 

While  the  above  statute  does  not  in  words  say  that  it  must 
be  stated  in  the  affidavit  that  the  work  was  furnished 
"under  a  contract,"  yet  as  the  contract  is  an  essential  of  the 
lien,  the  statement  will  be  void,  if  it  did  not  contain  an 
averment  of  that  kind.^*^  The  statute  is  specific  as  to  what 
shall  be  stated,  if  the  contract  is  in  writing,  and  must  be  strict- 
ly followed.  The  provision  in  the  statute,  that  "a  statement 
of  the  amount  and  times,  and  payments  to  be  made  thereun- 
der," should  be  given  in  the  affidavit,  seems  to  be  surplusage, 
for  the  copy  of  the  contract  itself,  if  it  be  in  writing,  ought 
to  contain  this  fact,  and  it  would  be  sufficient  compliance  with 
this  statute  if  the  copy  of  the  contract  showed  such  fact  with- 
out an  additional  averment.  But  if  the  contract,  which  is  in 
writing,  does  not  show  the  time  and  amount  of  payments  to 
be  made  thereunder,  then  this  averment  should  be  in  the  state- 
ment. Where  the  contract  is  verbal,  it  seems  it  would  be 
proper  to  set  out  the  terms  of  the  contract,  and  the  times  of 
payment,  although  this  has  been  held  not  to  be  an  essential.^'^ 
If  the  claimant  does  not  have  and  can  not  get  possession  of 
the  written  contract,  then  this  fact  should  be  stated,  and  the 
amount  and  times  of  payment  given.  A  proposition  which 
is  in  writing,  and  is  accepted  verbally,  is  not  a  contract  in 
writing  within  the  meaning  of  this  statute.  Before  it  would 
be  a  contract  in  writing  it  would  need  to  have  the  signature 
of  both  parties  attached.^s 

2^Bernsdorf     v.      Hardway,     6  Lapham  v.  Ransford,  74  Ohio  St. 

Ohio   Cir.    Dec.   171,    2   Ohio    Dec.  497,  78  N.  E.  1130. 

326.  7  Ohio  C.  C.  378.  27  Kunkle    v.     Reeser,    5     Ohio. 

25  Kunkle    v.     Reeser,     5     Ohio  Dec.  422,  5  Ohio  N.  P.  401. 

Dec.  422,  5  Ohio  N.  P.  401.  2S  in  re  Cincinnati  Brew.  Co.,  9 

26  Lapham      v.      Ransford,      27       Ohio  Dec.  519,  6  Ohio  N.  P  472 
Ohio  C.   C.   80;    affirmed    (unrep.) 


207     ♦  PRINCIPAL  CONTRACTOR — OHIO  STATUTE.  [§  81 

10.     Description  of  land. 

The  fourth  essential  is  that  this  affidavit  mnst  contain  a 
description  of  the  land  upon  which  the  improvement  is  lo- 
cated. This  is  an  essential,  a  failure  to  comply  with  which 
will  nullify  all  attempts  to  secure  a  lien.  The  best  and  most 
accurate  description  should  be  inserted  that  can  be  readily 
obtained.  That  is  preferred  which  is  contained  in  the  deed 
evidencing  the  title  of  the  same.  However,  such  a  descrip- 
tion is  not  absolutely  essential,  and  it  will  be  sufficient  if  it 
is  of  such  a  character  that  it  will  advise  prospective  purchasers 
and  others,  of  the  lien,  and  of  the  land  upon  which  it  is 
claimed.29  The  fact  that  there  was  an  inadvertent  misdescrip- 
tion, will  not  invalidate  the  lien  on  that  part  of  the  real  es- 
tate which  is  properly  described,^**  and  the  claimant  may,  if 
within  the  time,  correct  the  same  by  filing-  another  claim  with 
a  proper  description.  Where  a  debtor  makes  an  assignment 
before  the  lien  is  filed,  and  the  title  of  the  property  then  be- 
comes vested  in  the  assignee,  it  is  probable  that  less  cer- 
tainty of  description  will  suffice.^^  As  a  general  rule,  a  de- 
scription is  sufficient  which  will  enable  any  person  fairly  fa- 
miliar with  the  land  in  the  vicinity  to  identify  the  same,  or 
which  will  be  sufficient  to  enable  the  sheriff  to  levy  an  execu- 
tion under  a  writ  of  that  character. 

11.     Date  of  lien. 

When  the  affidavit  is  properly  made  out  and  "filed,  it  op- 
erates as  a  lien  from  the  date  of  the  first  item  of  the  labor 
performed,  or  machinery,  etc.,  furnished  upon,  or  toward  the 
property.  This  language  is  to  be  used  without  limitation, 
qualification  or  reservation  in  favor  of  any  person,  and  as 
the  claimant  cannot  file  his  lien  until  after  the  work  is  com- 
pleted, to  hold  otherwise  would  be  to  defeat  in  a  large  meas- 

29  Kunkle  v.  Reeser,  5  Ohio  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  564,  6  Ohio  C.  C. 
Dec.  422.  5  Ohio  N.  P.  401.     See      516. 

§§  103-107.  31  Kunkle   v.    Reeser,     5      Ohio 

30  Pedretti      v.     Stichenoth,      3      Dec.  422,  5  Ohio  N.  P.  401. 


§81]  PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN.  208 

lire  the  objects  of  the  statute.^^  ^g  between  persons  under 
a  direct  contract  with  the  owner,  there  is  no  distinction  be- 
tween them. ^3  If  the  work  or  labor  is  done  under  such  cir- 
cumstances as  would  constitute  a  running  account,  the  lien 
will  date  from  the  first  item.  But  if  the  labor  or  materials 
were  so  furnished  that  each  might  be  considered  as  a  sep- 
arate contract,  then  the  lien  will  date  from  the  first  item  un- 
der each  contract.^^  No  written  or  other  notice  is  required, 
on  the  part  of  the  claimant,  other  than  that  which  can  be 
gathered  from  the  appearance  of  the  premises,  during  the  time 
the  work  is  performed,  or  the  materials  are  furnished.  Strang- 
ers must  take  notice  at  their  peril,  the  same  as  where  per- 
sons are  in  actual  occupancy  of  the  premises.^^  As  a  general 
rule  it  may  be  said  that  excavation  of  a  foundation  of  a  build- 
ing is  the  commencement  of  the  building,  and  this  is  notice  to 
all  persons,  that  there  may  be  mechanics'  liens  on  the  prem- 
ises. So.  too,  if  stone  or  lumber,  suitable  for  building  pur- 
poses, is  placed  upon  the  ground,  this  wall  be  notice,  and  as 
between  the  original  parties  it  might  be  possible  for  the  lien 
lo  date  f''om  the  time  when  there  was  no  visible  means  of 
knowing  that  a  structure  was  to  be  erected  on  the  premises, 
as  where  the  materials  are  prepared  in  a  shop  some  distance 
from  the  premises.  This  would  be  held  good  unless  it  preju- 
diced ihe  rights  of  third  persons.  Even  if  the  premises  bore 
no  visible  evidence  of  the  structure  about  to  be  put  thereon, 
yet  if  parties  had  actual  knowledge  that  a  building  was  to  be 
constructed,  they  would  be  bound  by  such  knowledge.  These 
conclusions  apply  to  all  persons  claiming  a  lien  prior  to  the 
mechanic.      When    there    is    a   new    contract,     materials     fur- 

32  w^illiams  v.  Miller,  2  Ohio  37  Ohio  L.  Bull.  90;  10.  S.  U.  554; 
Dec.  (Re.)  119,  1  West.  L.  Mo.  Bernsdorf  v.  Hardaway,  6  Ohio 
See  §  129.  Cir.   Dec.   171;    Franklin   Bank  v. 

33  Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2  Cincinnati,  10  Ohio  Dec.  543,  S 
Ohio   St.   114.  Ohio  N.   P.   517. 

3  4  Choteau      v.      Thompson,      2  35  Thomas  v.  Heusman,  10  Ohio 

Ohio  St.  114;   Gibbons  v.  Brewer,       St.  152. 


209  PRINCIPAL  CONTRACTOR OHIO  STATUTE.  [§  81 

nished  after  the  new  contract  will  date  from  that  time.^*^  In 
case  of  machinery  delivered  F.  O.  B.  lien  dates  from  such  de- 
livery.3'^ 

12.  Duration  of  lien. 

When  the  claim  is  once  properly  filed,  the  lien  continues  in 
force  during  the  period  of  six  years  from  and  after  the  date 
of  its  filing,  and  if  an  action  is  brought  within  that  time,  it 
will  continue  in  force  until  the  action  is  finally  disposed  of. 
The  word  "brought"  means  obtained,  or  gotten,  and  signifies 
the  same  as  sued  out.  "Brought"  and  "commencement"  are 
synonymous  terms,  and  the  action  is  deemed  commenced  at 
the  date  of  the  summons  which  is  served  upon  the  owner  of  the 
land  or  structure,  upon  which  it  is  sought  to  foreclose  the  lien. 
The  courts  sustain  this  provision  of  the  statute.^^  But  in  or- 
der to  do  so,  the  claimant  must  exercise  a  reasonable  degree 
of  diligence.  If  the  suit  should  be  dismissed  for  want  of  pros- 
ecution, then  the  lien  claim  would  be  lost,  unless  a  new  suit 
was  commenced  within  the  six-year  period.  During  this  time, 
when  the  suit  is  in  court,  the  doctrine  of  lis  pendens  applies. ^^ 

13.  Notice  to  ozvner. 

The  statute  requires  that  such  person,  that  is,  the  person 
filing  the  lien,  shall  within  thirty  days,  notify  the  owner  that 
he  has  filed  and  claimed  such  lien.  Failure  to  do  so  will  nullify 
the  lien.  A  previous  clause  in  the  Ohio  Mechanics'  Lien  Law 
made  the  necessity  of  such  notification  dependent  upon  the  fact 
of  there  being  a  dispute  about  the  claim.  The  present  statute 
makes  it  an  absolute  requirement,  and  this  is  no  doubt  wise,  be- 

36  St.      Clair     Bldg.     Assn.     v.  38  Ambrose      v.     Woodmansee, 

Hayes,    1    Ohio    Cir.    Dec.    456,    2  27   Ohio  St.   147.     See   §  131. 

Ohio  C.  C.   225.  39  Owen  v.  Murry,  6  Ohio  Dec. 

3T  King      V.      Cleveland        Ship  223,    4    Ohio    N.    P.    151.       Effect 

Bldg.  Co.,  50  Ohio   St.  320,  34  N.  of   dismissal   of   suit:    Markley  v. 

E.  436.  Michael,    8    Ohio    Dec.    (Re.)    269, 


6    Ohio    L.    Bull.    832. 


14 


§81]  PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN.  210 

cause  the  legislature  considers  that  the  lien  should  not  be  fas- 
tened upon  any  one's  property  without  his  knowledge. 

FORM    OF    NOTICE    TO    OWNER. 

Springfield.  O 19... 

C.  D.— Dear  Sir— 

You  are  hereby  notified  that,  pursuant  to  the  provisions 
of  the  mechanic's  lien  laws  of  Ohio,  I  have  filed  with  the  re- 
corder of County.  Ohio,  for  record  as  required  by  law, 

my  account  and  affidavit  thereto  against  you,  in  order  to  ob- 
tain a  lien  therefor  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  provisions  of 
said  act,  on  your  certain  lot  of  land  in  the  City  of  Springfield, 
said  County,  at  the  corner  of  North  and  East  Streets,  and 
the  structures  thereon.  E.  F. 

14.  Form  of  afHdai'it  for  Hen,  for  persons  under  direct  contract. 

In  conformity  to  the  suggestions  above  made,  the  following 
ma}'  be  taken  as  a  general  form  of  affidavit : 

State  of  Ohio,  Clark  County,  ss. 

A.  B.  (or  authorized  agent  or  attorney  for  A.  B.),  being 
first  duly  sworn,  says  that  the  foregoing  (or  annexed)  ac- 
count marked  exhibit  "A,"'  and  made  a  part  hereof,  is  a 
true  and  correct  statement  of  the  labor  done  and  materials 
furnished  to  said  C.  D.  (naming  the  person,  firm  or  corpora- 
tion for  whom  done),  together  with  the  amount  and  values 
thereof,  and  times  of  doing  same,  together  Avith  all  credits  and 
offsets  thereon   (or  if  no  credits  or  offsets,  so  state).     That 

there  is  now  due  and  owing  him  the  sum  of  $ ,  which 

he  claims  with  interest  from  the day  of ,  A.  D. 

19.  ..  (The  average  date  of  account,  or  when  the  same  became 
due.)  That  said  work  and  labor  (materials  or  machinery) 
was  done  (or  furnished)  the  said  C.  D.  to  be  used,  and  were 
used,  in  and  about  the  construction  (or  repair,  according  to 
fact)  of  a  certain  dwelling-house  (mention  kind  of  structure 
upon  which  work  was  done)   situate  upon  a  certain  tract  or 


211  PRINCIPAL  CONTRACTOR — FORM   OF  LIEN.  [§81 

lot  of   land   in   the   County  of    ,   State   of  Ohio,   and 

bounded  and  described  as  follows:  (Here  give  accurate  de- 
scription of  premises  upon  which  the  structure  is  located.)  In 
accordance  with  the  terms  of  a  written  (or  verbal)  contract  of 
which  the  following  is  a  true  copy:  (Here,  if  written,  set  out 
exact  copy  of  contract;  if  verbal,  set  out  the  substance  of  such 
verbal  contract  under  which  work  was  done  or  materials  fur- 
nished with  all  modifications,  giving  for  what  contracted,  dates, 
amounts  and  times  of  payment.)  That  the  said  C.  D.  gave  to 
said  claimant  for  such  labor  (or  material  or  machinery  or  for 
part  thereof)    his   certain   promissory   note    (or  notes)    dated 

,  for  $ ,  due    ,  with    per  cent. ;  that 

the  following  credits  appear  on  said  notes  (or  give  copies  of 
notes  with  all  indorsements,  etc.).  The  said  C.  D.  is  the 
owner  of  said  premises  and  the  said  A.  B.  claims  a  mechanic's 
lien  on  said  structure  and  the  lot  of  land  on  which  it  is  situate, 
by  virtue  of  the  mechanic's  lien  law,  and  its  amendments, 
from  the  first  item  of  said  account  (or  from  the  commence- 
ment of  said  work)  on  the day  of ,  A.  D.  19. . . 

A.  B. 
Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  and  in  my  presence  by 
the  said  A.  B.  this day  of ,  A.  D.  19.  .. 


§  82.  Lien — How  acquired — Principal  and  subcontractor — 
Indiana  statute. — Section  8297^^  of  the  Indiana  statutes 
provides :  Any  person  wishing  to  acquire  such  lien  upon  any 
property,  whether  his  claim  be  due  or  not,  shallfile  in  the 
recorder's  office  of  the  county,  at  any  time  within  sixty  days 
after  performing  such  labor  or  furnishing  such  materials,  or 
machinery,  described  in  section  1,  notice  of  his  inten- 
tion to  hold  a  lien  upon  such  property  for  the  amount  of  his 
claim,  specifically  setting  forth  the  amount  claimed,  and  giv- 

la  Burns'  1908,  sect.  8297,  re-enacted  by  Acts  Ind.  1909,  p.  296. 


§  82]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  212 

ing  a  substantial  description  of  such  lot  or  land  on  which  the 
house,  mill,  manufactory,  or  other  buildings,  bridge,  reservoir, 
system  of  waterworks  or  other  structure  may  stand  or  be  con- 
nected with,  or  to  which  it  may  be  removed.  Any  description 
of  the  lot  or  land  in  a  notice  of  a  lien  will  be  sufficient,  if  from 
such  description  or  any  reference  therein,  the  lot  or  land  can 
be  identified. 

Section  8298^^  provides  that  the  recorder  shall  record 
the  notice,  when  presented,  in  the  miscellaneous  record  book, 
for  which  he  shall  receive  twenty-five  cents ;  and  all  liens  so 
created  shall  relate  to  the  time  when  the  mechanic  or  other 
person  began  to  perform  the  labor  or  furnish  the  materials 
or  machinery,  and  shall  have  priority  over  all  liens  suffered 
or  created  thereafter,  except  the  liens  of  other  mechanics  and 
material  men,  as  to  which  there  shall  be  no  priority. 

1.     JVlio  may  acquire. 

When  the  statute  gives  the  right  to  a  lien,  upon  the  per- 
formance of  certain  labor,  or  the  furnishing  of  certain  mate- 
rial, the  claimant  must  perfect  that  lien  by  taking  all  the  steps 
provided  for  by  the  statute  in  order  to  create  a  lien  on  the 
property.  If  this  is  not  done, — no  matter  by  whose  fault, — 
there  can  be  no  lien.^  Knowledge  by  the  owner,  that  the  me- 
chanic is  performing  the  labor,  or  a  material  man  furnishing 
material,  or  the  fact  that  the  work  is  done  under  contract 
with  the  owner,  will  not  be  sufficient  to  do  away  with  the 
statutory  requirements  in  perfecting  the  lien.^  The  person 
who  may  perfect  such  lien  is  designated  in  the  previous  sec- 
tion, and  is  the  person  who  has  performed  the  kind  of  labor 

lb  Burns'  1908,  Sect.  8298,  reen-  See  §§  71,  102. 

acted   by   Acts    Ind.    1909,   p.    296.  2  Neeley    v.   Searight,   113    Ind. 

§4.  316,    15    N.     E.     598;     Caylor      v. 

1  Windfall    Nat.    Gas,    &c.,    Co.  Thorn,  125  Ind.  201.  25  N.  E.  217. 

V.  Roe,    (Ind.  App.)    84  N.  E.  996.  See  §  74. 


213  INDIANA  STATUTE  AND  FORM.  [§  82 

or  furnished  the  kind  of  materials  therein  designated.  Each 
claimant,  unless  the  contract  be  a  joint  one,  must  proceed  sep- 
arately to  perfect  his  lien.^ 

2.     Claim  due  or  not  due. 

It  is  immaterial  whether  the  claim  is  due  or  not  due,  but 
it  is  material  that  the  work  has  been  performed,  or  that  the 
materials  have  been  furnished  prior  to  the  time  that  the  lien 
is  sought  to  be  perfected.  The  lien  dates  from  the  first  item 
of  the  labor  performed  or  materials  furnished,  when  once  prop- 
erly filed,  and  the  owner  is  responsible  from  that  date,  hence 
there  is  no  necessity  for  the  lien  to  be  filed  until  after  the  per- 
formance of  the  work,  or  the  furnishing  of  the  material. 

§  83.  Lien — Filing — Duration — Indiana  statute. — The  claim 
must  be  filed  in  the  recorder's  office  of  the  county  in  which  the 
land  is  located,  upon  which  the  structure  has  been  erected,  or 
where  the  work  has  been  done,  and  it  is  deemed  recorded  from 
the  time  of  filing  with  the  recorder.^  A  failure  to  properly  re- 
cord it  will  not  defeat  the  lien,^  unless  recorded  in  a  book 
which  is  not  properly  used  for  that  purpose,  and  third  par- 
ties are  misled  by  such  fact.*^ 

1.     When  to  he  Hied. 

The  notice  is  to  be  filed  any  time  within  the  sixty-day  period 
after  the  labor  has  been  performed,  or  the  materials  furnished. 
If  the  contract  includes  the  entire  structure,  then  the  period 

SMcGrew   v.    McCarty,    78    Ind.  132  Ind.  331,  31  N.  E.  1108;  Leep- 

496;   Northwestern  Loan  Assn.  v.  er  v.  Myers,  10  Ind.  App.  314,  37 

McPherson,  23   Ind.  App.   250,   54  N.    E.    1070;    Northwestern    Loan 

N.  E.  130.     See  §  85.  &c.,  Assn.  v.  McPherson,   23  Ind. 

4  Wilson    V.    Hopkins,    51    Ind.  App.  250,  54  N.  E.  130. 

231;      Northwestern      Loan      &c.,  6  palkner    v.    Colshear,   39    Ind. 

Assn.  V.  McPherson,  23  Ind.  App.  201;    Wilson  v.   Hopkins,   51   Ind. 

250,  54  N.  E.  130.     See  §  86.  231;    Adams   v.    Buhler,    131    Ind. 

5  Adams  v.  Buhler,  131  Ind.  66,  66,  30  N.  E.  883;  Adams  v.  Shaf- 
30  N.  E.   883;    Adams   v.   Shaffer,  fer,   132   Ind.  331,   31  N.   E.   1108. 


§  82]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  214 

will  begin  to  run  from  the  completion  of  the  buildingJ  Where 
the  mechanic  performs  only  a  part  of  the  labor  or  materials 
in  the  construction,  then  the  period  begins  to  run  from  the 
last  items  furnished.^  Even  though  the  completion  of  the 
work^**  or  the  delivery  of  the  last  of  the  materials^*^  be  delayed 
several  weeks  after  the  remainder  of  the  contract  was  com- 
pleted and  the  work  tendered  (but  rejected)  as  a  full  com- 
pliance with  the  contract,  a  lien  filed  within  sixty  days  after 
the  final  act  was  done  will  be  in  time,  if  it  was  done  under  the 
original  contract  and  by  way  of  complete  performance 
thereof. s*=  If  materials  are  furnished,  under  one  con- 
tract, for  several  buildings,  it  will  begin  to  run  on  either 
building  from  the  last  item  furnished.^  Where  it  is  necessary 
to  test  machinery  to  determine  whether  the  contract  has  been 
completed,  or  where  a  certificate  of  the  architect  is  to  be  given 
to  determine  that  fact,  then  these  facts  will  determine  the  be- 
ginning of  the  period. ^*^  If  after  the  contract  is  supposed  to 
be  completed,  it  is  found  that  additional  work  is  required,  be- 
fore it  can  be  considered  completed,  then  the  time  at  which 
the  additional  work  is  done,  will  be  the  date  from  which  cal- 
culation is  made.^i  If  filed  within  the  sixty-day  limit,  the  fact 
that  there  is  nothing  owing  to  the  contractor  by  reason  of 
payments   made   to   him,  will   not  afifect  the  right  of  a   sub- 

7  Hamilton    v.    Naylor,    72    Ind.  App.    95,    77    N.    E.    1096;    Home 
171;   Lawton  v.  Case,  73  Ind.  60;  Brewing  Co.   v.  Johnson,   41   Ind. 
Thomas  v.  Kiblinger,  77  Ind.  85;  App.  44,  83  N.  E.  358. 
Sulzer-Vogt    Mach.    Co.    v.    Rush-  sc -v\rjiitcomb    v.    Roll,    40     Ind. 
ville  Water  Co.,  160  Ind.  202,   65  App.  119,  81  N.  E.  106. 

N.  E.   583.     See   §§  86-97.  9  Premier    Steel    Co.    v.    McEl- 

8  Hamilton    v.    Naylor,    72    Ind.      waine-Richards  Co.,  144  Ind.  614, 
171;   Lawton  v.  Case,  73  Ind.  60;       43  N.  E.  876. 

Thomas  v.  Kiblinger,  77  Ind.  85;  i"  Jeffersonville    Water    Supply 

Stephenson   v.    Ballard,    82  Ind.  Co.   v.  Riter,   138   Ind.  170,   37  N. 

87;    Patton    v.    Matter,     21  Ind.  E.  652. 

App.  277,  52  N.  E.  173.  nConlee  v.  Clark,  14  Ind.  App. 

SaWhitcomb    v.    Roll,    40  Ind,  205,  42  N.  E.  762,  56  Am.  St.  298; 

App.  119;  81  N.  E.  106.  Siegmund    v.     Kellogg,    38     Ind. 

sbSiegmund  v.  Kellogg,  38  Ind.  App.   95,  77   N.  E.  1096. 


215  INDIANA    STATUTE NOTICE FORM.  [§  82 

contractor.i2  If  the  owner  designates  a  time  at  which  a  build- 
ing may  be  considered  as  completed,  although  it  has  been  in 
fact  completed  prior  thereto,  the  time  will  date  from  that  sug- 
gested by  the  owner.^^  jf  payment  is  refused,  because  the 
work  is  not  satisfactory,  and  thereafter  the  mechanic  makes 
changes  to  make  it  satisfactory,  the  time  will  date  from  the 
day  the  changes  were  made.^-*  In  calculating  time,  it  is  con- 
sidered proper  to  exclude  the  first  and  include  the  last  day.^^^ 

2.     Notice. 

This  notice  or  statement,  as  it  is  usually  termed  in  me- 
chanics' lien  law,  is  a  vital  part  of  the  mechanics'  lien,  and 
the  courts  hold  that  the  lien  itself  is  created  by  the  filing  of 
the  notice  with  the  recorder.^^  Without  such  notice  there 
can  be  no  lien.^^  In  the  case  of  laborers,  if  the  debtor  is  in 
failing  circumstances,  the  lien  is  good  without  the  notice.^''' 
Courts  are  not  very  strict  as  to  the  form  of  this  notice  so  that 
it  contain  all  of  the  requirements  of  the  statute, ^^  and  allow 
immaterial  amendments  to  be  made ;  but  if  the  mistake  is  a 
material  one  it  can  not  be  corrected  after  the  sixty-day  limit 
has  expired. ^^     It  is  sufficient  if  the  signature  is  the  owner's 

12  Merritt    v.    Pearson,    58    Ind.  fer.  132  Ind.  331,  31  N.  E.  1108. 
385;  Andis  v.  Davis,  63  Ind.  17.  it  Goodbub  v.  Hornung,  127  Ind. 

13  Whitcomb  v.  Roll,  40  Ind.  181,  26  N.  E.  770.  See  Sulzer- 
App.  119,  81  N.  E.  106.  Vogt  Mach.  Co.  v.  Rushville  Water 

1^  Whitcomb    v.   Roll,    40     Ind.  Co.,  160  Ind.  202,  65  N.  E.  583;  Na- 

App.  118,  81  N.  E.  106.  tional    Supply    Co.    v.'    Stranahan, 

i-ia  Burns        1908.     §1350.      See  161  Ind.  602,  69  N.  E.  447. 
Towell  V.  Hollweg,  81  Ind.  154.  is  Newhouse  v.  Morgan,  127  Ind. 

15  Adams   v.    Buhler,     131     Ind.  436,    26    N.    E.     158;     Quaack     v. 

66,  30  N.  E.  883;   Adams  v.  Shaf-  Schmid,  131  Ind.  185,  30  N.  E.  514; 

fer,  132  Ind.   331,  31  N.  E.  1108;  Clark  v.  Huey,  12  Ind.  App.  224, 

Leeper   v.    Myers,     10     Ind.    App.  40    N.    E.    152;    Rhodes   v.    Webb- 

314,  37  N.  E.  1070;   Northwestern  Jameson  Co.,  19  Ind.  App.  195,  49 

Loan  Assn.  v.  McPherson,  23  Ind.  N.  E.  283. 
App.   250,  54  N.  E.   130.  19  Windfall  Nat.  Gas,  &c.,  Co.  v. 

ic  Adams    v.    Buhler,    131    Ind.  Roe,  (Ind.  App.,)  85  N.  E.  722. 
66,  30  N.  E.  883;   Adams  v.  Shaf- 


§  82]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  216 

name  signed  by  his  attorney.^t*  If  the  land.^^a  the  person  as- 
serting the  lien^oiJ  and  the  vahie  of  the  work  or  materials  for 
which  a  Hen  is  asserted^oc  and  the  person  to  whom  the  notice 
is  addressed-*^*^  are  shown  the  notice  is  sufficient.  And  there 
is  authority  to  the  effect  that  even  the  name  of  the  owner  is 
not  essential,2o«  though  it  is  usually  inserted. 

3.     Itemized  statement. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  the  statement  be  itemized ;  it  is  suf- 
ficient if  it  states  the  amount  for  which  the  lien  is  claimed.^^ 
Where  the  materials  have  been  furnished  at  different  times, 
it  should  be  in  sufficient  detail  to  advise  the  owner  and  others 
what  is  claimed.  It  ought  to  show  whether  the  claim  is 
due  or  not.-^  But  the  failure  to  state  such  fact  will  not  de- 
feat the  lien,  as  between  the  original  parties.  If  third  persons 
are  misled  thereby  it  is  thought  the  rule  would  be  diff'erent.^^ 
Under  a  recent  statute  suit  to  foreclose  must  be  commenced 
within  one  year  after  the  notice  is  filed  unless  the  notice  shows 
that  the  debt  will  not  become  due  until  a  future  date.^^a 
Neither  is  the  statement  necessarily  void,  if  it  claims  more 
than  is  really  due,  unless  such  claim  is  made  fraudulently.^'* 
Generally,  it  is  said,  a  statement  or  notice  is  sufficient  if  it 

20  Siegmund  v.  Kellogg,  38  Ind.  East,   13   Ind.  App.  432,   41   N.  E. 

App.  95,  77  N.  E.  1096.  839. 

2oa  Windfall    N.    G.    Co.    v.    Roe  2oewatson's     Statutory     Liens, 

(Ind.  App.)  84N.  E.  996;  Stephens  §991;    Peck   v.    Hensley,    21    Ind. 

V.  Duffy,  41  Ind.  App.  385,  83  N.  E.  344;  Cleverly  v.  Mosely,  148  Mass. 

268.  280. 

20b  Coburn  V.  Stephens,  137  Ind.  2iNeeley  v.    Searight,   113   Ind. 

683,  36  N.  E.  132;  Simonds  v.  Buf-  316,  15  X.  E.  598.     See  §  115. 

ord,  18  Ind.  176.  22  wade   v.   Reitz,   18   Ind.   307; 

20c  Siegmund  v.  Kellogg,  38  Ind.  Schneider  v.  Kolthoff,  59  Ind.  568. 

App.  95,  77  N.  E.  1096;  Rhodes  v.  2.3  Albrecht    v.     Foster    Lumber 

Webb,  Jameson   Co.   19  Ind.  App.  Co.,  126  Ind.  318,  26  N.  E.  157. 

195.  23a  Acts  1909,  p.  335,  §§3,  4. 

20d  Coburn  V.  Stephens.  137  Ind.  24  Harrington     v.     Dollman,     64 

683,    36    N.    E.    132;    Maynard    v.  Ind.  255;  Albrecht  v.  Foster  Lum- 
ber Co.,  126  Ind.  318,  26  N.  E.  157. 


217  INDIANA  STATUTE — ITEMIZED  STATEMENT.  [§  83 

states  the  amount,  to  whom,  by  whom,  and  for  what  due,  and 
describes  the  premises.^^  In  a  notice  for  materials  for  a  heat- 
ing plant,  in  a  hotel,  a  claim  was  sufficient  when  it  was  said 
that  it  was  "for  work  and  labor  done,  and  materials  furnished 
in  the  erection  and  construction  of  said  house. "2** 

4.     Description  of  premises. 

The  statute  itself,  gives  a  general  rule  as  to  what  will  con- 
stitute a  sufficient  description.  A  statement  which  contains 
a  description  of,  or  refers  to  the  property  intended  in  such  a 
way  that  the  lot  or  land  can  be  identified,  is  sufficient  in  that 
particular.2'^  A  description  of  a  gas  well  as  located  in  section 
9,  when  it  should  have  been  on  section  10,  a  mile  distant,  will 
not  support  a  lien  on  the  well.^s  But  a  misdescription  not 
defeating  identification  might  not  afifect  the  owner  or  those 
acting  through  him.^^  If  the  description  is  sufficient  to  notify 
the  owner  of  the  land,  of  the  property  intended,  a  mistake 
in  stating  the  addition  of  a  town  in  which  the  lot  is  located, 
is  immaterial.^*^  And  if  a  mistake  is  made  in  describing  one 
lot  in  a  lien,  that  will  not  affect  another  correctly  described.^^ 
Uncertain  and  indefinite  descriptions  may  be  aided  by  extrinsic 
evidence  under  proper  averments  in  the  petition.^^  g^t  if  the 
notice  does  not  really  describe  the  land  the  lien  is  void,  and 

25  Simonds    v.    Buford,     18  Ind.  so  Smith  v.   Newbaur,    144    Ind. 

176;  Coburn  v.  Stephens,  137  Ind.  95,  42  N.  E.  40,  1094,  33  L.  R.  A. 

683,  36  N.  E.  132,  45  Am.  St.  218;  685. 

Jeffersonville  Water  Supply  Co.  v.  si  Heyde  v.  Suit,  22  Ind.  App.  83, 

Riter,  146  Ind.'  521,  45  N.  E.  697;  52  N.  B.  456. 

Rhodes  v.  Webb-Jameson  Co.,  19  32  Crawfordsville  v.  Johnson,  51 

Ind.  App.  195,  49  N.  E.  283.  Ind.  397;    Crawfordsville  v.  Barr, 

20  Siegmund  v.  Kellogg,  38  Ind.  65  Ind.  367;  White  v.  Stanton,  111 

App.  95,  77  N.  E.  1096.  Ind.  540,  13  N.  E.  48;    Coburn  v. 

27  Stephens  v.  Duffy,  41  Ind.  Stephens,  137  Ind.  683,  36  N.  E. 
App.  385,  83  N.  E.  268.     See  §103.  132,   45  Am.  St.  218;    Maynard  v. 

28  Windfall  Nat.  Gas,  &c.,  Co.  v.  East,  13  Ind.  App.  432,  41  N.  E. 
Roe  (Ind.  App.,)  85  N.  E.  722.  839,  55  Am.  St.  238;  Northwestern 

29  McNamee  v.  Rauck,  128  Ind.  Loan,  &c.,  Assn.  v.  McPherson,  23 
59,  27  N.  E.  423.  Ind.  App.  250,  54  N.  E.  130. 


§  83]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  218 

a  description  cannot  be  supplied.^-'^  If  the  petition  or  com- 
plaint correctly  describes  the  lot,  as  between  original  parties, 
the  fact  that  it  was  imperfectly  described  in  the  notice  will  not 
affect  the  lien.  The  fact  that  the  statement  claims  more  land 
than  really  should  be  within  the  lien,  will  not  aft'ect  it,  unless 
done  for  a  fraudulent  purpose. ^^ 

5.     Date  of  lien. 

When  the  statement  is  properly  filed,  the  lien  dates  from 
the  time  the  person  began  to  perform  the  labor  or  furnish 
the  material.  As  to  third  persons,  this  will  usually  be  when 
there  was  visible  evidence  on  the  premises  that  work  had  been 
done  of  a  character  coming  within  the  mechanics'  lien  law. 
As  between  the  owner  and  contractor,  or  material  man,  it  will 
date  from  the  time  that  such  work  was  actually  begun  or  the 
materials  actually  furnished.^"* 

6.     Duration  of  lien. 

The  lien  if  filed  in  time,  will  continue  until  one  year  from 
the  date  after  the  notice  has  been  received  for  record  by  the 
recorder  and  within  that  time  proceedings  shall  be  com- 
menced to  foreclose  the  same,  unless  the  notice  of  the  lien 
shows  that  it  is  not  yet  due,  and  discloses  when  the  credit 
given  will  expire,  and  then  within  one  year  from  the  expira- 
tion of  each  credit.-'^-*'^  It  does  not  date  from  the  time  that 
the  claim  may  be  due.  but  from  the  time  that  the  lien  is  filed 
with  the  recorder.^5  Under  the  statutory  requirement  that  a 
mechanics'   lien    might   be   enforced    "by   filing   a    complaint" 

32a  Windfall,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Roe.  Ind.  34  Burns  1908,  §  8299,  as  reenact- 

App.,   84   N.   E.  996;    McNamee   v.  ed  by  acts  1909,  p.  295,  §5;   Acts 

Rauck,  128  Ind.  59,  27  N.  E.  423;  1909,  p.  335,   §§3,  4.     See   §130. 

Hunger  v.  Green,  20  Ind.  38.  35  Schneider  v.  Kolthoff,  59  Ind. 

33  Scott     V.    Goldinghorst,     123  568.     See  §  131. 
Ind.  268,  24  N.  E.  333;   Dalton  v. 
Hoffman,  8  Ind.  App.  101. 


219  EXEMPTIONS FORM INDIANA   STATUTE.  [§  84 

within  one  year,  it  was  held  unnecessary  to  cause  a  summons 
to  issue  to  the  sheriff  within  that  period.^^^  But  a  recent  sta- 
tute provides  that  "no  action  shall  be  brought"  to  foreclose 
such  a  lien  after  the  debt  has  been  due  one  year,^^^  which 
makes  it  necessary  to  cause  process  to  issue  as  an  essential 
step  in  bringing  the  suit.^'^''  If  not  commenced  within  such 
period,  all  rights  under  the  lien  are  lost.^'^ 

§  84.  Lien — Exemptions — Priority — Form — Indiana  statute. 
— There  are  no  exemptions  allowed  against  the  claim  of  the 
mechanic,  under  the  statute.  The  claim,  however,  is  not  su- 
perior to  the  inchoate  interest  of  a  married  woman  in  the 
lands  of  the  husband.^^  And  in  case  of  the  husband's  death 
owning  less  than  $500  worth  of  property  his  widow  may  take 
it  all,  including  his  interest  in  the  land  he  has  caused  to 
be  improved,  freed  from  mechanics'  liens  for  the  hus- 
band's debts. ^^*  When  the  lien  is  properly  filed,  it 
then  has  priority  over  every  other  lien  created  thereafter,  ex- 
cept the  liens  of  other  mechanics  and  material  men.^^  The 
lien  gives  notice  from  the  time  of  its  filing,  but  relates  back 
to  the  time  when  the  articles  were  furnished,'*''  and  is  prior  to 
all  liens  of  other  kinds,  created  subsequent  to  that  time.'*^  A 
lien  existing  previous  to  the  time  that  the  mechanics"  lien  at- 
taches, is  of  course  prior  thereto.^2     Such  a  lien  to  be  superior 

36  Carriger  v.  Mackey;  15  Ind.  39  Krotz  v.  Beck  Lumber  Co., 
App.  392,  44  N.  E.   266.                           34    Ind.    App.    577,    73    N.    E.    273. 

36a  Acts  1909,  p.  335,  §§3,  4.  See   §144. 

36b  Burns'   1908,    §317;    Alexan-  ^o  Millikin     v.     Armstrong,     17 

dria  Gas  Co.  v.  Irish,  152  Ind.  535,  Ind.    456;    Waldo    v.    Walters,    17 

537;    Cruger    v.    Mackey,    15    Ind.  Ind.  534. 

App.  392,  44  N.  E.  266.  41  Mark  v.  Murphy,  76  Ind.  534. 

37  Close  V.  Hunt,  8  Blackf.  Burns'  1908,  §  8298,  as  reenact- 
(Ind.)   254;   Kulp  v.  Chamberlain,  ed.  Acts  1909,  p.  296,  §4. 

4  Ind.  App.  560,  31  N.  E.  376.  42  Coburn  v.  Stephens,  137  Ind. 

38  Bishop  V.  Boyle,  9  Ind.  169,  683,  36  N.  E.  132,  45  Am.  St.  218; 
68  Am.  Dec.  615;  Mark  v.  Mnr-  Thorpe  Block  Saving  &c.,  Assn. 
phy,  76  Ind.  534.  v.  James,  13  Ind.  App.  522,  41  N. 

38a  Lloyd  V.  Arney  (Ind.  App.)  E.  978;  Zehner  v.  Johnston,  22 
87  N.  E. 


§  84]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN,  220 

to  the  mechanics'  must  be  properly  perfected,  and  if  a  mort- 
gage should  remain  unrecorded,  until  after  the  mechanics' 
liens  are  acquired,  it  loses  its  priority.^^  But  where  there  is 
a  prior  lien,  the  statute  gives  the  mechanic  a  lien  on  the  par- 
ticular building  or  improvement  made  by  him,  prior  to  the 
mortgage  lien  on  the  property.^'*  If  after  contract  with  the 
owner  to  furnish  materials,  the  owner  conveys  the  land  before 
the  furnishing  of  the  materials  has  begun,  no  lien  can  be 
acquired  against  the  purchasing  owner,  but  it  will  be  other- 
wise if  the  furnishing  of  the  materials  had  begun  before  the 
conveyance. ^^ 

FORM   OF   NOTICE  OF  MECHANIC'S  LIEN. 

,  19... 

To and  all  others  concerned : 

You  are  hereby  notified  that intends  to  hold  a  me- 
chanic's lien  on as  well  as  upon  the 

house  recently  erected  thereon  by   for  the  sum 

of   dollars,  for  work  and  labor  done,  and  materials 

furnished  by in  the  erection  and  construction  of 

said  house,  which  work  and  labor  done,  and  material  fur- 
nished, was   done   and  furnished    by     at    your 

special  instance  and  request,  and  within  the  last  sixty  days. 

Said  debt  thereby  secured  will  become  due  on  the day 

of   ,   19.  .    (or  is  now  due).^*^ 


Ind.  App.  452,  53  N.  E.  lOSO.     See  §  45a  supra.     Building   &c.,  Assn. 

§151.  V.  Coburn,  150  Ind.  684,  50  N.  E. 

43  Jenckes  v.  Jenckes,  145  Ind.  885;    Carriger  v.  Mackey,  15   Ind. 
624,   44  N.   E.    632;    Northwestern  App.  392,  44  N.  E.  266. 

Loan    &c.,    Assn.    v.    McPherson,  -45  Jeffersonville    "Water    Supply 

23    Ind.   App.    250,    54    N.    E.    130.  Co.  v.  Riter,  138  Ind.  170,  37  N.  E. 

See  §§155-161.  652.     See  §163. 

44  Burns'  1908,   §  8296,  as   reen-  46  Acts  Ind.  1909,  p.  335,  §§  3,  4. 
acted,  Acts  1909,  p.  296,  §  2.     See 


221 


ONE  OR  MORE  BUILDINGS  OR  LOTS  OF  LAND. 


[§85 


§  85.  Claim  or  statement  on  one  or  more  buildings  or  lots  of 
land. — The  statutes  generally  provide  that  the  lien  shall  at- 
tach to  the  "lot  of  land"  upon  which  the  buildings  are  lo- 
cated, and  what  will  constitute  or  be  included  in  this  term 
"lot  of  land"  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury  to  decide. ^  As 
a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that  the  term  "lot  of  land"  in- 
cludes the  whole  lot  or  parcel  of  land  belonging  to  the  owner 
upon  which  the  structure  is  located,  or  upon  which  the  im- 
provement is  made.2  One  of  the  elements  determining  this 
question  is  the  owner's  use.^  No  matter  upon  how  many  dif- 
ferent buildings  the  work  or  materials  may  be  furnished,  if 
they  are  all  on  the  same  parcel  or  "lot  of  land"  or  appurte- 


1  Crawfordsville  v.  Barr,  65 
Ind.  367;  Edwards  v.  Derrickson, 
28  N.  J.  L.  39;  Browne  v.  Smith, 
2  Browne  (Pa.)  229.  See  Dec. 
&  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§130. 

2  Woodburn  v.  Gifford,  66  111. 
285;  Miller  v.  Hoffman,  26  Mo. 
App.  199.  Thus  in  Edwards  v. 
Derrickson,  28  N.  J.  L.  39,  it  was 
held  that  a  lien  upon  a  mill  would 
cover  all  the  land  known  or  used 
as  the  mill  property,  containing 
in  all  more  than  fifty  acres. 
There  were  besides  the  mill  sev- 
eral dwelling  houses  on  the 
tract,  which  were  usually  occu- 
pied by  persons  employed  in  the 
mill.  With  one  house  there  was 
enclosed  seven  or  eight  acres. 
The  residue  was  in  common. 
For  thirty  years  the  whole  had 
been  known  and  conveyed  as  one 
property.  In  Choteau  v.  Thomp- 
son, 2  Ohio  St.  114,  123,  the 
court  says:  "That  by  the  words, 
'lot  of  land  upon  which  the  same 
shall  stand'  is  not  meant  merely 
the  ground  covered  by  the  build- 


ing; nor  do  they,  necessarily, 
confine  the  lien  to  the  particular 
lot  as  known  on  the  town  plat 
on  which  the  building  stands.  On 
the  contrary,  where,  as  in  the 
present  instance,  two  adjacent 
town  lots  are  used,  without  any 
actual  division  between  them,  as 
one  mill  lot,  a  part  of  the  build- 
ings and  the  machinery  being 
upon  one  and  a  part  upon  the 
other,  the  lien  extends  to  both 
lots,  though  the  precise  spot 
where  the  work  was  done,  may 
be  within  the  limits  of  one  of 
them.  And  the  case  is  the  same, 
whenever  two  or  more  adjacent 
lots  are  thrown  into  one  lot,  the 
ideal  lines  of  division  being  dis- 
regarded, and  used  for  a  common 
purpose,  whatever  that  purpose 
may  be."  What  would  be  includ- 
ed in  the  case  of  a  dwelling  or 
barn  built  upon  a  farm  the  court 
expressly  refuses  to   decide. 

3  Gould  v.  Wise,  18  Nev.  253; 
Pennock  v.  Hoover,  5  Rawle  (Pa.) 
291;    Piaro  v.  Bethel,  75  Va.   825. 


§85: 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


222 


nant  thereto.^  one  claim  covering  all,  will  be  sufficient.^  This 
may  be  true  though  the  work  is  done  under  different  con- 
tracts.^ But  if  the  amount  properly  chargeable  to  each  build- 
ing can  be  ascertained,  separate  liens  may,  and  perhaps  ought 
to  be  filed."  If  several  owners  of  several  contiguous  lots  treat 
the  property  as  one  tract,  in  making  the  contract,  one  lien 
statement  will  be  sufficient.^  As  a  general  rule  if  the  build- 
ings are  on  different  lots  or  parcels,  a  lien  statement  must 
be  filed  for  each  tract. ^     And  even  where  the  lots  are  con- 


^  Crawford  v.  Anderson,  129 
Ind.  117,  28  N.  E.  314. 

Common  Purpose. — Where  ma- 
terials are  furnished  for  one  or 
more  of  several  buildings  on  a 
large  tract  of  land  used  for  a 
common  purpose,  a  lien  may  be 
filed  against  the  particular  build- 
ing or  buildings  for  which  the 
materials  were  furnished  and  the 
appurtenant  lots.  Girard  Point 
Storage  Co.  v.  Southwark  Foun- 
dry Co.,  105  Pa.  248. 

'>  Indiana. — Premier  Steel  Co.  v. 
McElwaine-Richards  Co.,  144  Ind. 
614,   43  X.  E.  876. 

Minnesota, — Gardner  v.  Leek, 
52  Minn.  522,  54  N.  W.  746;  Lax 
V.  Peterson,  42  Minn.  214,  44  N. 
W.  3. 

Missouri. — Flanagan  v.  O'Con- 
nell,  88  Mo.  App.  1. 

Pennsj-lyania. — Law  v.  Levine, 
13  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  152;  Donahoo 
V.  Scott,  12  Pa.  St.  45. 

Washington.  —  Sullivan  v. 
Treen,  13  Wash.  261,  43  Pac.  38. 

WTiere  31  houses  were  built  on 
a  tract  of  land,  the  fact  that  two 
alleys,  31  feet  wide,  were  left  for 
purposes  of  ingress,  leaving  the 
houses  in  three  blocks,  the  houses 
were  not   so  separated   as   to  re- 


quire a  distinct  notice  of  lien  for 
each  house.  Miller  v.  McDuffee, 
12  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  38l. 

6  House  and  barn.  Fitch  v.  Ba- 
ker. 23  Conn.  563.  Cement  walks. 
Gardner  v.  Leek,  52  Minn.  522,  54 
N.  W.   746. 

"  Lax  V.  Peterson,  42  Minn.  214, 
44  N.  W.  3;  Hill  v.  Gray,  81  Mo. 
App.  456.  Where  materials  were 
furnished  indiscriminately  on  the 
credit  of  different  buildings  erect- 
ed at  the  same  time,  some  on  one 
side  of  the  street,  and  some  on 
the  other,  separate  mechanics' 
liens  maj'  be  filed  against  each 
property,  but  the  claimant  may 
not  designate  by  an  apportion- 
ment the  amount  for  which  each 
house  is  liable,  when  he  is  unable 
to  offer  any  direct  evidence  to 
show  that  any  of  the  materials 
claimed  in  the  bill  of  particulars 
were  furnished  on  the  credit  of 
the  particular  house  against 
which  the  lien  in  suit  was  filed. 
Jeanette  Planing  Mill  Co.  v. 
Greenawalt,  11  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  157. 

8  Deegan  v.  Kilpatrick,  66  N.  Y. 
Supp.  628,  54  App.  Div.  371. 

9  A  lumber  dealer  sold  lumber 
for  three  paper  mills,  belonging 
to   the    same   owner,   which   were 


223 


STATEMENT ONE  OR  MORE  BUILDINGS. 


85 


tiguous,  if  the  buildings  are  erected  under  separate  contracts, 
the  lien  statements  should  be  separate.^*^  And  it  has  also  been 
held  that  the  lien  statements  should  be  separate  where  the 
buildings  are  on  contiguous  lots,  even  if  all  were  erected  under 
an  entire  contract.!^     But  other  courts  hold  where  the  con- 


undergoing  repairs,  two  upon 
one  piece  of  land,  and  the  third 
upon  a  separate  piece,  keeping  a 
separate  account  of  the  lumber 
furnished  to  each.  He  afterward 
filed  a  certificate  of  his  lien,  de- 
scribing the  three  mills  together, 
and  his  lien  as  one  lien  upon  the 
whole,  and  stating  the  whole 
amount  due  him  as  the  amount 
of  his  lien.  Held,  that  the  certi- 
ficate was  void,  both  in  respect  to 
the  description  of  the  premises 
covered  by  the  lien  and  in  re- 
spect to  the  statement  of  the 
amount.  Chapin  v.  Persse  &c., 
Paper  Works,  30  Conn.  461,  79 
Am.  Dec.  263. 

District  of  ColuniWa. — Alfred 
Richards  Brick  Co.  v.  Trott,  23 
App.  D.  C.  284. 

Illinois. — Aurand  v.  Martin,  188 
111.  117,  58  N.  E.   926." 

Indiana — McGrew  v.  McCarty, 
78  Ind.  496;  Hill  v.  Braden,  54 
Ind.  72. 

Massaclmsetts.  —  Osborne  v. 
Barnes,  179  Mass.  597,  61  N.  E. 
276. 

Bliode  Island.  —  McElroy  v. 
Keily,  27  R.  I.  474,  63  Atl.  238. 

10  Connecticut.  —  Larkins  v. 
Blakeman,  42  Conn.  292. 

Kansas.  —  North  and  South 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Hegwer,  1  Kan. 
App.  623,  42  Pac.  388. 

Missouri. — ^Fitzpatrick  v.  Thom- 
as, 61  Mo.  512,  515;   Aimee  Real- 


ty Co.  v.  Haller,  128  Mo.  App.  66, 
106  S.'W.  588. 

Pennsylvania. — Goepp  v.  Gart- 
izer,  3  Phila.  (Pa.)  335. 

A  claim  which  contains  a  state- 
ment of  materials  furnished  for 
repairs,  on  a  house,  and  also  ma- 
terials furnished  for  repairs  on 
a  fence,  and  claiming  a  lien  on 
both  house  and  fence,  is  defect- 
ive. Kezartee  v.  Marks,  15  Ore. 
529,  16  Pac.  407. 

iiHalsted  &c.,  Co.  v.  Arick,  76 
Conn.  382,  56  Atl.  628;  Fitzpat- 
rick  V.  Thomas,  76  Mo.  513;  At- 
kinson V.  Shoemaker,  151  Pa.  St.' 
153,  25  Atl.  59,  30  W.  N.  C.  567. 
Lots  separated  by  alley  15  feet 
wide,  not  contiguous;  Missouri 
Central  Lumber  Co.  v.  Sedalia 
Brewing  Co.,  78  Mo.  App.  230,  2 
Mo.  App.  Repr.  189.  The  "lot  of 
land,"  to  which  a  mechanic's  lien 
attaches  in  towns,  cities,  and 
villages  (Wag.  St.  pp.  907, 
908,  §  1),  means  the  lot  as 
bounded  and  described  on  the 
plats,  or  as  subdivided  and  bound- 
ed by  conveyances  of  the  owners, 
or  by  other  acts  done  by  them 
for  that  purpose.  And  where 
there  are  a  number  of  lots,  each 
containing  a  separate  building, 
although  the  lots  are  contiguous 
and  in  a  compact  body  of  land, 
and  without  division  fences,  a 
single  lien  filed  against  all  the 
lots    as   one    parcel    of   land,   for 


§85] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


224 


tract  is  entire  and  the  lots  contiguous/^  or  even  when  not 
contiguous,'"^  if  the  claimant  can  and  does  show  in  the  state- 
ment what  went  into  each  structure,  one  lien  statement  may 
cover  all.^'*  Under  a  statute  that  allowed  one  lien  statement 
to  be  filed  on  "adjoining  houses"  it  was  held  in  order  to  ad- 
join, they  must  not  be  separated  by  streets. ^^  However,  the 
dedication  of  the  street  after  the  houses  were  commenced, 
will  not  prevent  them  from  being  "adjoining"  houses,  since 
the  right  is  determined  from  the  condition  of  the  ground  at  the 
time  the  buildings  were  commenced. ^^  Where  buildings  are 
erected  for  different  owners,  whether  on  contiguous  lots,^'^ 
or  not,^^  or  where  they  are  erected  under  a  several  or  joint 
contract,^^  separate  lien  statement  must  be  filed.^o  The  lien 
right  will  be  lost  if  the  materials  are  so  commingled  that  they 
cannot  be  apportioned  and  a  separate  statement  filed.^i  Where 


the  aggregate  value  of  all  the 
work  done  and  material  furnished 
on  the  several  houses,  is  invalid; 
nor  can  it  aid  the  lien  that  the 
whole  work  was  done  under  one 
contract,  and  not  under  separate 
contracts  for  each  building.  Fitz- 
gerald V.   Thomas,   61  Mo.    499. 

12  Sprague  Inv.  Co.  v.  Mouat 
Lumber,  &c.,  Co.  (Colo.  App.),  60 
Pac.  179;  Flanagan  v.  O'Connell, 
8S  Mo.  App.  1;  Bickel  v.  Fray.  SI 
Mo.  App.  653;  Chambers  v.  Yar- 
nall,   15    Pa.    St.   265. 

13  Cocciola  V.  Wood-Dickerson 
Supply  Co.,  136  Ala.  532,  33  So. 
856;  Williams  v.  Judd-Wells  Co., 
91  Iowa  378,  59  N.  W.  271;  Bohn 
Sash  &  Door  Co.  v.  Case,  42  Neb. 
281,  60  N.  W.  576;  Chadbourn  v. 
Williams,  71  N.  Car.  444. 

14  Aurand  v.  Martin,  87  111. 
App.  337;  Hines  v.  Cochran,  44 
Neb.  12,  62  N.  W.  299;  Byrd  v. 
Cochran,    39    Neb.    109,    58    N.    W. 


127;  Culver  v.  Lieberman,  69  N. 
J.  L.  341,  55  Atl.  812.  Partner- 
ship. Hill  V.  Gray,  81  Mo.  App. 
456. 

15  Lucas  V.  Hunter,  153  Pa.  St. 
293,  25  Atl.  827,  also  11  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  343;  Allen  v.  Fitzpatrick,  9 
Phila.  (Pa.)  142,  30  Leg.  Int. 
(Pa.)  240;  Schultz  v.  Asay,  2 
Penny.    (Pa.)    411. 

16  Atkinson  v.  Shoemaker,  151 
Pa.  St.  153,  25  Atl.  59,  30  W.  N.  C. 
567;  Kline's  Appeal,  93  Pa.  422. 

1"  Gruner  &c..  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Nelson,  71  Mo.  App.  110. 

18  Kerbaugh  v.  Henderson,  3 
Phila.    (Pa.)    17. 

19  Rathbun  v.  Hayford,  5  Allen 
(Mass.)    406. 

20  Bartlett  v.  Bilger,  92  Iowa 
732,  61  N.  W.'  233. 

21  Cahill  V.  Capen,  147  Mass. 
493,  18  N.  E.  419;  Reitz  v.  Ghio, 
47  I\Io.  App.  287;  Gorgas  v.  Doug- 
las. 6  Serg.  &  R.    (Pa.)   512. 


225 


STATEMENT ONE  OR   MORE  TRACTS  OF  LAND. 


:§85 


the  contract  is  joint,  and  the  several  owners  treat  the  entire 
contract  as  one,  then  one  lien  statement  is  sufficient.22  As  a 
general  rule  where  the  houses  are  all  erected  under  one  gen- 
eral contract,^^  and  on  contiguous  lots,^*  owned  by  one  per- 
son,-3  one  lien  statement  is  sufficient.-*^  Where  the  claimant 
can  separate  the  claim   for   materials,   etc.,   furnished   at   dif- 


22  Mandeville  v.  Reed,  13  Abb. 
Prac.  (N.  Y.)  173;  Powell  v.  No- 
lan, 27  Wash.  318,  67  Pac.  712. 
Where  the  several  owners  of  two 
contiguous  lots  jointly  contract 
for  their  excavation,  treating  the 
lots  as  one  parcel,  and  jointly 
obligating  themselves  to  pay  for 
the  work  done  at  an  agreed  price 
per  cubic  yard,  irrespective  of  the 
question  of  title,  the  contract- 
ors may  treat  the  lots  as  one  par- 
cel in  filing  a  notice  and  enforc- 
ing a  lien  against  the  same,  and 
need  not  proceed  against  the  lots 
separately.  Deegan  v.  Kilpatrick, 
66  N.  Y.  Supp.  628,  54  App.  Div. 
371. 

23  Bulger  v.  Robertson,  50  Mo. 
App.  499;  Walden  v.  Robertson, 
120  Mo.  38,  25  S.  W.  349.  A  struc- 
ture erected  on  two  lots,  as  one 
building,  but  divided  by  a  parti- 
tion wall,  having  an  open  court 
between  the  two  parts  above  the 
first  story,  both  being  heated  by 
the  same  steam  plant,  and  a 
porch  with  a  continuous  roof  ex- 
tending across  the  rear  of  the  en- 
tire structure,  is  one  building, 
and  a  lien  thereon  need  not  be 
apportioned.  Bastrup  v.  Prender- 
gast,  179  111.  553,  53  N.  E.  995.  An 
owner  of  two  adjacent  lots  ran 
a  fence  midway  across  them, 
building  a  house  on  one  lot  and 
a   barn  on   the  other,  but  within 

15 


the  same  inclosure.  The  build- 
ings were  30  feet  apart,  but  con- 
stituted the  home  residence  of 
the  owner.  Work  and  materials 
were  applied  to  both  buildings, 
and  the  separate  value  on  each 
was  not  found.  Held,  that  a  sin- 
gle notice  of  mechanics'  liens 
against  the  two  lots  was  suffi- 
cient. Northwestern  Loan  &c., 
Assn.  V.  McPherson,  23  Ind.  App. 
250,  54  N.  E.  130. 

2  4  Bulger  V.  Robertson,  50  Mo. 
App.  499. 

Contiguous  Lots.— Rev.  St.  1899, 
§  6729,  provides  that  a  single  me- 
chanic's lien  may  be  taken  on 
"contiguous"  lots.  Held,  that  lots 
separated  by  an  alley  are  not 
"contiguous,"  and  that,  where  a 
lien  is  filed  within  six  months  aft- 
er the  completion  of  a  building 
on  one  lot,  but  not  within  six 
months  after  the  completion  of 
a  building  on  a  lot  separated 
therefrom  by  an  alley,  the  lien  is 
insuflicient  as  to  the  latter  lot. 
Bolen  Coal  Co.  v.  Ryan,  48  Mo. 
App.  512. 

25  Moran  v.  Chase,  52  N.  Y.  346; 
Willamette  Steam  Mills,  «S;C.,  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Shea,  24  Ore.  40,  32  Pac. 
759. 

20  Arkansas. — Tenney  v.  Sly,  54 
Ark.  93,  14  S.  W.  1091. 

Connecticut. — Marston  v.  Ken- 
yon,  44  Conn.  349. 


85] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


226 


'ferent  times,  it  has  been  held  that  he  may  file  either  a  sep- 
arate claim  on  each  building  or  one  claim  on  all.^^  However, 
on  double  houses,  one  claim  should  be  filed.-^  A  claimant 
may  waive  or  release  part  of  his  claim  without  releasing 
his  right  to  a  lien  on  the  remainder.^^  But  work  or  material 
furnished  on  a  released  building  cannot  be  included  in  a  lien 
on  the  remainder,^'^  and  the  ripened  interests  of  third  per- 
sons cannot  be  affected  by  any  release.^^  Distinct  claimants 
cannot  file  a  joint  statement,^^  unless  the  statute  so  pro- 
vides.33 

§  86.  Claim  or  statement — Place  and  mode  of  filing. — The 
claim  must  be  filed  in  the  place  designated  by  statute.^  Where 
the  law  requires  filing  in  an  office  which  does  not  exist,  a  fil- 


Missouri. — Waben  v.  Robertson, 
120  Mo.  38,  25  S.  W.  349;  Dear- 
dorff  V.  Roy,  50  Mo.  App.  70; 
O'Leary  v.  Roe,  45  Mo.  App.  567; 
Schroeder  v.  Mueller,  33  Mo.  App. 
28. 

Washington.  —  Wheeler  v. 
Ralph,  4  Wash.  617,  30  Pac.  709. 

27  Kick  V.  Doerste,  45  Mo.  App. 
134. 

28  Halsted,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Arick,  76 
Conn.  382,  56  Atl.  628;  McKelle- 
get  V.  Eckhard,  4  Mo.  App.  589; 
Boyd  V.  Mole,  9  Phlla.  (Pa.)  118, 
30  Leg.  Int.    (Pa.)    116. 

29  Carr  v.  Hooper,  48  Kan.  253, 
29  Pac.  398;  Meixell  v.  Griest,  1 
Kan.  App.  146,  40  Pac.  1070;  Con- 
tra. Schulenberg  v.  Vrooman,  7 
Mo.  App.  133.  Where  the  plain- 
tiff, in  a  suit  against  adjoining 
lot  owners,  under  a  contract  for 
the  erection  of  one  building 
thereon,  dismisses  as  to  one  de- 
fendant and  seeks  to  enforce  his 
lien,      proportionately        reduced, 


against  the  others,  the  latter  will 
not  be  heard  to  complain  of 
such  apportionment.  Carter  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Simpson,  83  Tex.  370. 
IS   S.  W.   812. 

30  Nickel  v.  Blanch,  67  Md.  456, 
10  Atl.  234;  Wilson  v.  Wilson,  51 
Md.  159. 

3iReilly  v.  Williams,  47  Minn. 
590,  50  N.  W.  826. 

32  McGrew  v.  McCarty,  78  Ind. 
496. 

33  Hopkins  v.  Jamieson — Dixon 
Mill  Co.,  11  Wash.  308,  39  Pac. 
815. 

1  Maine.— Skillin  v.  Moore,  79 
Me.   554,   11  Atl.   603. 

Massachusetts. — Weeks  v.  Wal- 
cott,   15    Gray    (Mass.)    54. 

Xew  York. — Hawkins  v.  Mapes- 
Reeves  Const.  Co.,  82  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  72,  81  N.  Y.  Supp.  794; 
Bell  V.  Vanderbildt,  67  How.  Prac. 
(N.  Y.)  332,  12  Daly  (N.  Y.)  467; 
Terwilliger  v.  Wheeler,  81  App. 
Div.   460,  81  N.  Y.  Supp.  173. 


227 


STATEMENT — PLACE  OF  FILING. 


[§86 


ing  in  another  like  office  will  not  avail  and  there  is  no  lien.^ 
As  to  the  place  of  filing,  the  law  in  force  at  the 
time  the  lien  is  filed  controls.^  To  constitute  a  proper 
filing,  the  claim  or  statement  should  be  placed  in 
the  custody  of  the  officer  designated  by  statute.^  As 
the  object  and  purpose  of  filing  is  to  give  prospective  in- 
cumbrancers or  purchasers  notice  of  a  possible  lien,  it  should 
be  filed  in  the  county,^  or  in  the  place  for  the  filing  of  in- 
cumbrances against  the  particular  property.^  If  located  in 
different  governmental  divisions  a  lien  must  be  filed  in  eachJ 
It  is  immaterial  who  performs  the  act  of  filing.^  But  the  claim 
should  be  made  out  by  the  person  furnishing  the  materials, 
or  his  authorized  agent.^  If  the  statement  is  properly  made 
out  and  filed,  it  will  be  good  between  the  parties,  although 
the  officer  fails  to  record  it  according  to  law.^"^     As  to  third 


North  Carolina. — Boyle  v.  Rob- 
bins,  71  N.  Car.  130. 

Rhode  Island.  —  Gurney  v. 
Walsham,  16  R.  I.  698,  19  AtL 
323;  see  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics'  Liens,    §  131. 

2  Cheney  v.  Wolf,  2  Lans.  (N. 
Y.)   188. 

3  Willim  V.  Bernheimer,  5 
Minn.  229;  Whipple  v.  Christian, 
15  Hun  (N.  Y.)  321  Waring  v. 
Miller,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  36  S.  Car. 
310,  15  S.  E.  132. 

4  Watkins  v.  Bugge,  56  Neb. 
615,  77  N.  W.  83.  Giv- 
ing the  statement  to  the  town 
clerk  at  the  latter's  house, 
is  a  sufficient  filing,  if  the  clerk 
notes  thereon  the  time  it  was 
received,  although  he  does  not 
take  it  to  his  office  and  record  it 
until  after  the  prescribed  time  of 
filing  has  expired.  Wood  v.  Si- 
mons, 110  Mass.  116. 

^  Phoenix  Furniture  Co.  v.  Put- 
in-Bay   Hotel    Co.,    66    Fed.    683; 


J.  C.  Vreeland  Bldg.  Co.  v.  Knick- 
erbocker Sugar  Refining  Co.  (N. 
J.),  68  Atl.  215. 

6  Boston  v.  Chesapeake,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  76  Va.  180. 

■?  Bringham  v.  Knox,  127  Cal. 
40,  59  Pac.  198. 

8  Corbett  v.  Chambers,  109  Cal. 
178,   41   Pac.   873. 

»  Deatherage  v.  Woods,  37  Kan. 
59,  14  Pac.  474.     See  §  74. 

10  Indiana. — Adams  v.  Shaffer, 
132  Ind.  331,  31  N.  E.  1108;  Wil- 
son V.  Logue,  131  Ind.  191,  30  N. 
E.  1079,  31  Am.  St.  426;  Adams 
V.  Buhler,  131  Ind.  66,  30  N.  E. 
883;  Wilson  v.  Hopkins,  51  Ind. 
231;  Leeper  v.  Myers,  10  Ind. 
App.   314,   37   N.   E.   1070. 

Minnesota. — Smith  v.  Headley, 
33  Minn.  384,  23  N.  W.  550. 

Missouri. — Cornelius  v.  Grant, 
8  Mo.  59. 

Pennsylvania. — Irish  v.  Harvey, 
44   Pa.   St.  76. 


86] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


228 


persons,  however,  it  will  be  void.^^  If  the  statute 
makes  the  recording  of  the  claim  the  foundation  of  the  lien, 
then,  if  not  recorded  as  provided  by  statute,  it  will  be  void 
even  as  between  the  original  parties. ^^  The  time  of  actual 
delivery  of  the  statement  for  filing  prevails, ^^  and  not  the 
time  endorsed  thereon, ^-^  nor  the  time  of  the  recording.^^  The 
statement  is  legally  filed  when  it  is  put  in  possession  of  the 
proper  offtcer.^*^ 


Wisconsin. — Goodman  v.  Baer- 
locher,  SS  Wis.  287,  60  N.  W.  415, 
43  Am.  St.  893. 

iiFalkner  v.  Colshear,  39  Ind. 
201;  Appeal  of  Cessna  (Pa.),  10 
Atl.  1.  Sayles  Civ.  St.  Art.  3165, 
Texas,  which  requires  mechanics' 
liens  to  be  recorded  by  the  coun- 
ty clerk  in  a  book  kept  for  that 
purpose,  does  not  make  it  neces- 
sary that  they  be  recorded  in  a 
book  kept  exclusively  for  that 
purpose,  and  a  record  thereof  in 
the  general  deed  record  books  is 
sufficient  where  it  appears  that 
such  books  were  also  kept  and 
used  to  record  mechanics'  liens, 
and  that  no  book  was  kept  in  the 
county  clerk's  office  for  such  pur- 
pose alone.  Lignoski  v.  Crooker, 
86  Tex.  324,  24  S.  W.  278;  see 
also,  Bosley  v.  Pease,  86  Tex. 
292,  24  S.  W.  279;  Bassett  v. 
Brewer,  74  Tex.  554,  12  S.  W. 
229;  Lyon  v.  Logan,  68  Tex.  521, 
5  S.  W.  72,  2  Am.  St.  511;  Quinn 
v.  Logan,  67  Tex.  600,  4  S.  W.  247. 

12  Under  that  part  of  Pub.  St. 
c,  177,  §  5,  as  amended  by  Pub. 
Laws,  1888,  c.  696,  §  4,  which  pro- 
vides that  "no  lien  shall  attach 
for    materials    furnished,    unless 


the  person  furnishing  the  same" 
shall  give  notice,  as  required, 
and  "place  a  copy  of  said  notice 
on  record — in  a  book  to  be  kept 
for  that  purpose,"  the  mere  filing 
of  the  copy  is  not  enough;  nor  is 
the  mere  recording  of  the  names 
of  the  parties  to  the  notice,  with 
a  minute  of  the  time  when  the 
copy  was  filed,  a  sufficient  re- 
cording. Dodge  V.  Walsham,  16 
R.  I.  704.  19  Atl.  326. 

Dnly  recorded. — A  statement  of 
lien  is  not  duly  recorded  by 
merely  handing  it  to  the  record- 
ing officer  after  office  hours,  with 
a  request  to  record  it.  Jewett  v. 
Darlington,  1  Wash.  T.  601. 

13  Orne  v.  Barstow,  175  Mass. 
193,  55  N.  E.  896;  Lang  v.  Mena- 
sha  Paper  Co..  96  N.  W.  393,  119 
Wis.  1.  Unautliorized  sliipnient. 
Canton  &c..  Machine  Co.  v.  Roll- 
ing Mill  Co.  of  America,  155  Fed. 
321. 

1^  Grubbs  v.  Cones,  57  Mo.  83; 
Bruce  v.  Hoos,  48  Mo.  App.  161; 
Spencer  v.  Doherty,  17  R.  I.  89, 
20   Atl.    232. 

15  Speakman  v.  Knight,  3  Phila. 
(Pa.)    25. 

i»5  Orne  v.  Barstow.  175  ]Mass. 
193. 


229  SUB-CONTRACTOR FILING OHIO  STATUTE.  [§87 

§  87.  Filing  notice  by  subcontractor  with  recorder  to  notify 
fellow  laborers. — Ohio  statute. — Section  3195  of  the  Ohio 
statutes  provides  that  such  subcontractor,  material  man,  me- 
chanic, laborer  or  person  so  filing-  his  statement  with  the 
owner,  board,  officer,  or  authorized  clerk  or  agent  or  attorney 
thereof,  shall,  in  order  to  notify  his  fellow  subcontractors,  ma- 
terial men,  mechanics  and  laborers,  at  the  same  time  file  a  copy 
thereof  with  the  recorder  of  the  county  where  such  property 
is  situate,  which  if  he  fail  to  do,  the  filing  of  the  notice  with 
the  owner,  board,  officer,  or  authorized  clerk,  agent  or  attor- 
ney thereof  shall  give  him  no  preference  over  other  claim- 
ants ;  and  for  filing  or  making  any  copy  of  such  statement  or 
certificate  of  the  date  of  such  filing  the  recorder  shall  be  en- 
titled to  the  same  fees  as  are  provided  by  law  for  similar 
services  in  regard  to  chattel  mortgages.^  A  previous  section,^ 
requires  the  notice  to  be  filed  with  the  owner.  Now  in  order 
that  fellow  subcontractors  and  interested  parties  may  know 
that  such  a  claim  is  made,  the  person  claiming  a  subcontract- 
or's lien  must  file  a  notice  with  the  recorder.  The  same  rules 
apply  here  as  apply  to  the  filing  of  the  notice  by  the  prin- 
cipal contractor  with  the  recorder. ^  In  an  early  case^  it  was 
held  that  it  would  be  sufficient  to  protect  the  claims  of  all 
subcontractors,  if  this  notice  was  filed  by  one  of  the  subcon- 
tractors. A  later  case,  however,'^  seems  to  incline  to  the  opin- 
ion that  all  subcontractors,  who  have  a  claim  on  the  owner, 
should  not  only  give  notice  to  the  owner,  but  should  also  file 
their  claims  with  the  recorder.^  Where  no  interests  are  af- 
fected, except  those  of  the  owner  and  the  subcontractor  filing 
the  notice,  it  would  not  be  material  whether  the  notice  was 

1  97  Ohio  Laws,  501.  5  Hayden    Saddlery    Hardw.  Co. 

2  See    §  59.  v.  Slade,  3  Ohio  C.  C.  67,  2  Ohio 

3  See    §  44.  Cir.   Dec.   38. 

4  Kennett  v.  Rebholp,  6  Ohio  o  Geller  v.  Puchta,  1  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.  (Re.)  824,  8  Am.  L.  Rec.  354;  Dec.   18,   1   Ohio  C.  C.  30. 

4  Ohio  L.  Bull.  959. 


§  87]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT   LIEN.  230 

filed  in  the  recorder's  office  or  notJ  It  should  be  observed 
that  this  statute  says  that  a  copy  and  not  the  original  ac- 
count shall  be  filed  with  the  recorder.  It  is  sufficient  to  make 
a  copy  of  the  notice  required  under  Section  3193,^  which  has 
been  served  by  delivery  to  the  owner.  The  following  affidavit 
should  be  attached : 

The  State  of  Ohio,   County,  ss. 

E.  F.  (or  whoever  makes  the  service),  being  duly  sworn, 
says  that  the  foregoing  (or  annexed)  is  a  full,  true  and  com- 
plete copy  of  the  notice,  exhibit  and  affidavit  personally  served 

upon  C.  D.,  by delivering  the  same  to  him  at 

o'clock,   .  . .   M.,  on    ,  this    day  of   , 

A.  D.  19... 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  and  subscribed  in  my 

presence  this day  of ,  A.  D.  19. .. 

(Signature  and  Seal  of  officer.) 

§  88.  When  and  how  subcontractor  may  obtain  lien  on  the 
property  of  the  owner — Ohio  statute. — Section  3201  of  the  Ohio 
statutes  provides  that  if  out  of  subsequent  payments,  as  they 
severally  fall  due  under  the  contract,  and  for  ten  days  there- 
after, the  owner  or  his  authorized  agent  neglect  or  refuse  to 
pay,  when  due,  the  whole  or  a  pro  rata  amount,  as  the  case 
may  be,  of  the  sworn  statement  or  estimate  of  any  subcon- 
tractor, material  man,  laborer  or  mechanic,  such  subcontractor, 
material  man,  laborer  or  mechanic  shall  file,  within 
four  months  thereafter,  with  the  recorder  of  the  county  where- 
in the  property  is  situate,  an  affidavit  containing  an  itemized 
statement  and  description  of  any  note  with  the  amount  and 
value  of  such  labor,  machinery,  or  material  with  all  credits 
and  set-offs  thereon,  together  with  the  statements  required  by 
sections  three  thousand  one  hundred  and  eighty-five  or  three 

7  Keating    v.     Worthington,     11       Bull.  14. 
Ohio   Dec.    (Re.)    428,   27   Ohio   L.  »  See  §  59. 


231  SUB-CONTRACTOR OHIO  STATUTE.  [§  88 

thousand  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  as  the  case  may  be, 
from  principal  contractors,  and  shall  thereby  have  a  lien  to 
secure  the  payment  of  such  claim  upon  the  boat,  vessel  or 
other  water  craft,  or  upon  the  house,  mill,  manufactory, 
building",  appurtenance,  fixture,  bridge,  or  other  struc- 
ture or  gas  well,  oil  well  or  other  well  upon  which  the  labor 
was  done,  or  machinery  or  material  were  furnished,  and  upon 
the  interest  of  the  owner  in  the  lot  of  land  on  which  the  same 
stands,  or  to  which  it  may  be  removed,  which  lien  shall  date 
back  to  the  date  of  the  furnishing  of  the  first  item  of  such 
labor,  machinery  or  material  and  have  the  same  operation,  ef- 
fect and  duration,  and  be  subject  to  the  same  obligation  with 
respect  to  the  owner,  as  the  lien  of  a  head  contractor  in  sim- 
ilar cases. ^ 

1.     Generally. 

This  section  of  the  Ohio  law  is  distinguished  from  a  pre- 
vious section  (3193),^  in  that  it  gives  a  lien  to  the  subcon- 
tractor on  the  owner.  The  sections,  3193,^  3194,"*  and  3198,^ 
provide  a  method  of  asserting  a  personal  liability  against  the 
owner.  The  suit  can  be  brought  against  the  owner,  holding 
him  responsible  to  the  extent  of  the  moneys  in  his  hands 
coming  to  the  principal  contractor,  at  the  time  the  notice  of 
the  claim  was  given  to  him.  Before  a  lien  can  be  obtained 
on  the  property  of  the  owner,  these  conditions  precedent  must 
be  shown,  that  is,  first,  that  the  claim  was  properly  made  out 
and  served  upon  the  owner ;  secondly,  that  a  copy  was  filed 
in  the  recorder's  ofBce ;  third,  that  the  owner  has  notified  the 
head  contractor  of  such  claim  being  filed  with  him,  and  fourth, 
that  the  head  contractor  has  not  in  writing  disputed  the  claim 
within  the  five  days  limited  by  law. 

1  97   Ohio   Laws,   502.  4  See  §  91. 

2  See  §  59.  5  See  §  92. 

3  See  §  59. 


§  88]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  232 

2.     By  whom  filed. 

The  lien  may  be  filed  by  the  persons  mentioned  in  Section 
3193,^  that  is,  by  subcontractors,  material  men,  laborers  or  me- 
chanics. Much  of  the  detail  in  reference  to  the  lien  is  very 
similar  to  that  required  of  the  principal  contractor  in  perfect- 
ing his  lien  on  the  prooerty  under  Section  3185."  Of  course, 
it  must  be  shown  that  the  owner  has  neglected  or  refused 
to  pay  whatever  may  be  due  the  claimant.  The  lien  will  only 
attach  to  the  amount  which  may  be  recovered  in  a  personal 
action  against  the  owner.  The  proceeding  under  this  sec- 
tion is  used  in  cases  where  the  owner  is  not  financially  re- 
sponsible, or  where  the  claimant  wishes  to  assert  his  claim, 
on  the  improvement. 

3.     Form  of  lien  of  subcontractor,  etc.,  on  real  estate. 

State  of  Ohio,  Clark  County,  ss. 

E.  F.    (or   ,  the  authorized  agent  of  E.   F.),  being 

first  duly  sworn,  says :  That  in  pursuance  of  a  contract  be- 
tween one  A.  B.,  a  principal  (or  sub)  contractor,  and  said  E. 
F.,  of  the day  of 19.  . ,  of  which  the  follow- 
ing is  a  true  copy,  to-wit. :  (Here  copy  contract  between  sub- 
contractor or  laborer  or  material-men  and  principal  contract- 
or) ;  or  if  not  in  writing,  then  so  state,  giving  substance, 
amount,  value  and  items  furnished).  That  he  has  furnished 
labor  (machinery  or  materials)  of  the  amount  and  value  stated 
in  the  itemized  account  hereto  attached  marked  exhibit  "A," 
and  made  a  part  hereof,  for  the  purpose  and  which  were  used 
in  the  construction  (repair  or  alteration)  of  a  certain  dwelling- 
house  (or  other  structure  or  turnpike)  to  said  A.  B.,  a  princi- 
pal  contractor,  constructed    (or  repaired)    by  him   under  and 

by  virtue  of  his  contract  in  writing  of  the day  of , 

19..,  a  copy  of  which  is  as  follows: 

6  See    §  59.  '  See    §  SI. 


233  FORM — sub-contractor's  lien — OHIO  STATUTE.  [§  88 

(Here  set  out  copy  of  contract  between  principal  contractor 
and  owner ;  if  not  in  writing,  state  substance,  or  if  it  is  in 
writing  and  affiant  is  unable  to  get  a  copy,  so  state.) 

He  has  received  from  the  said  A.  B.  thereon  the  following 
notes,  to  wut. :  (Here  give  itemized  statement  or  description  of 
all  notes  so  received.)  That  said  dwelling  house  (or  other 
structure  or  turnpike,  etc.)  was  erected  and  is  situate  upon 
the  following  premises  of  which  the  said  C.  D.  is  owner,  within 
the  City  of  Springfield,  County  of  Clark,  and  State  of  Ohio, 
bounded  and  described  as  follows,  to-wit. :  (Here  describe 
premises  so  accurately  that  sherifT  may  locate.) 

That  on  the   day  of   ,   19.  .,  he  served  said 

C.  D.  with  a  sworn  affidavit  of  his  said  contract  with  said 
A.  B.  and  of  his  intention  to  furnish  said  labor  (or  materials 
or  machinery)  as  above  mentioned  and  in  the  attached  ex- 
hibit hereto,  marked  "A." 

(If  the  labor  or  materials  have  already  been  furnished,  say 

that  on  the day  of ,  19.  .,  he  served  said  C.  D. 

with  a  sworn  and  itemized  statement  of  said  labor,  etc.,  with 
the  amount  and  value  thereof,  and  on  the  same  day  filed  a 
copy  thereof  with  the  recorder  of  Clark  County,  Ohio.) 

That  said  A.  B.  has  not  notified  the  said  C.  D.  in  writing 
that  said  claim  is  disputed,  and  has  thereby  assented  to  the 
correctness  of  said  claim. 

That  the  said  C.  D.  has  neglected  and  refused  to  pay  his  said 
account  or  part  thereof  out  of  the  subsequent  payments  under 
said  C.  D.'s  contract  with  said  A.  B.  as  they  became  due,  and 
within  ten  days  thereafter,  whereby,  under  the  provisions  of 
the  mechanic's  lien  law,  he  has  become,  and  is,  entitled  to  a 
lien  upon  said  premises,  which  he  now  claims  and  asserts  from 

the day  of ,  19. .  (date  of  first  item  in  account) 

for  the  full  amount  of  v$ ,  his  said  claim,  with  interest, 

from  the   day  of ,  19. .. 

E.  F. 


§  89]  PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN.  234 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  and  in  my  presence 
this day  of ,  19.  ..  H.  I.,  Notary  Public. 

§  89.  Lien  entitled  to  priority  over  lien  of  head  contractor — 
Ohio  statute, — Section  3202  of  the  Ohio  statutes  provides  that 
such  lien  shall  be  superior  to  any  already  taken  or  to  be  taken 
by  the  head  contractor  in  respect  of  the  same  labor,  machin- 
ery, fuel,  or  material,  and  the  liens  of  laborers,  mechanics, 
or  persons  furnishing'  machinery,  fuel  or  material  to  a  con- 
tractor or  subcontractor,  shall  be  superior  to  any  lien  taken 
or  to  be  taken  by  such  contractor  or  subcontractor  indebted  to 
them  in  respect  to  such  labor,  machinery  or  material.  The 
lien  of  a  promissory  note  described  in  any  such  statement  shall 
take  effect  from  the  date  of  the  first  item  included  in  such 
notes,  and  an  assignment  or  transfer  by  such  head  contractor, 
or  subcontractor,  of  his  contract  with  the  owner,  or  head 
contractor,  as  well  as  all  proceedings  in  attachment,  or  other- 
wise, against  such  head  contractor  or  subcontractor,  to  sub- 
ject or  incumber  his  interest  in  such  contract,  shall  save 
and  be  subject  to  the  claims  of  every  laborer,  mechanic,  sub- 
contractor or  material  man,  who  has  furnished  any  labor,  ma- 
chinery, fuel  or  material  towards  the  construction,  altera- 
tion, removal,  or  repair  of  any  building-  or  other  property 
designated  in  this  chapter.^  If  the  lien  of  the  subcontractor 
is  properly  filed,  as  provided  in  section  3201,-  then  the  lien  at- 
taches to  the  real  estate  upon  which  the  improvement  stands, 
and  dates  as  therein  stated,  from  the  first  item  of  the  labor  or 
machinery  furnished.  If  a  note  has  been  taken,  then  the  priority 
extends  back  to  the  first  item  in  the  note.  The  fact  that  a  note 
has  been  taken  makes  no  dift'erence  as  to  such  priority.  The 
fact  that  the  principal  contractor  has  assigned  or  transferred 
what  is  due  him,  does  not  affect  the  subcontractor's  claim.    Of 

1 97  Ohio  Laws,  503.  Elec.    L.    Co.,    6    Ohio    Dec.    475, 

2  See     §§88,     144,     211;     Brush       4  Ohio  N.  P.  279. 
Electric    Light    Co.    v.    Warwick 


235  PRIORITY  OVER  HEAD  CONTRACTOR.  [§  89 

course  if  the  principal  contractor  had  made  assignments,  and 
the  owner  had  accepted  such  assignments,  before  notice  was 
given  to  him,  then  such  assignment  would  take  precedence, 
notwithstanding  the  language  of  the  statute.  The  lien  pro- 
vided in  Sections  3201  and  3202,-^  merely  gives  a  cumulative 
right  to  the  subcontractor,  and  the  subcontractor  can  sue  the 
owner,  and  recover  a  personal  judgment,  provided  all  the  nec- 
essary steps  have   been   complied  with.^ 

§  90.  Claim  or  statement — Notice  of  filing. — Statutory  re- 
quirements in  reference  to  notice  to  the  owner  of  the  filing  of  a 
statement  for  a  lien,  must  be  complied  with.^  Much  that  was 
said  in  an  earlier  section  on  the  subject  of  notice  to  owner  ap- 
plies here.2  The  particular  object  of  notice  to  the  owner  is 
to  enable  the  subcontractors  to  attach  a  lien  to  the  fund,  and 
prevent  payment  to  principal  contractor.  Notice  of  the  filing 
of  the  statement  or  lien,  is  for  the  purpose  of  notifying  the 
owner  and  incumbrances,  that  there  is  a  lien  claimed  on 
the  property.^  It  cannot  be  served  upon  an  agent  unless  the 
statute  so  provides.-*  If  served  on  an  agent,  it  must  be  shown 
that  the  acceptance  of  the  notice  was  within  the  scope  of  the 
agent's  authority.^  In  some  cases,  it  has  been  held  that  actual 
notice  will  not  dispense  with  the  giving  of  the  notice  required 

3  See  §§  88,  89.  Mich.   436,   96  N.   W.   504,   10   De- 

4  See  §  288.  troit  Leg.  N.  513. 
1  Colorado.  —  Sayre  -  Newton  2  See   §  74. 

Lumber  Co.  v.  Park,  4  Colo.  App.  3  Lee  v.   O'Brien,   54   Tex.   635; 

482,  36  Pac.  445.  Lee  v.  Phelps,  54  Tex.  367;   Tre- 

lowa. — Walker     v.      Queal,     91  mont   Hotel   Co.   v.    Rosamond,    2 

Iowa  704,  58  N.  W.  1083.  Posey  Unrep.  Cas.    (Tex.)    682. 

Maryland. — Fulton  v.  Parlett  &  •*  Wickham  v.  Monroe,  89   Iowa 

Parlett   (Md.),  64  Atl.  58.  666,   57  N.  W.   434. 

Micliigan. — Hannah  &  Lay  Mer-  ^  Crawfordsville     v.     Irwin,     46 

cantile  Co.   v.  Mosser,   105    Mich.  Ind.  438;   Steele  v.  McBurney,  96 

18,    62    N.    W.    1120;    Bourget    v.  Iowa  449,  65  N.  W.  332;   Smith  v. 

Donaldson,    83    Mich.    478,    47    N.  New     York,     32     Misc.     (N.     Y.) 

W.   326;    Waters   v.   Johnson,   134  380,   66   N.   Y.   Supp.    686;    proper 

officer     of     board;     Maddocks     v. 


90] 


PROCEEDINGS   TO   PERFECT   LIEN. 


236 


by  statute.^  But  the  giving  of  such  notice  as  between  the  origi- 
nal parties  may  be  waived^  If  notice  is  required  to  be  given 
by  copy  and  no  time  limit  is  provided,  then  it  must  be  given 
with  reasonable  diligence,^  within  a  reasonable  time."  If  the 
ow^ner  makes  it  impracticable  to  serve  him  with  notice  as  re- 
quired by  statute,  then  service  will  be  excused. ^°  In  cases 
where  work  is  done  on  separate  properties,  the  better  w^ay  is 
to  give  a  notice  for  each  property,  although  it  may  be  valid 
wdiere  but  one  lien  statement  is  filed,  especially  if  the  rights 
of  third  parties  are  in  no  way  affected. ^^  Proof  of  service  is 
made  the  same  as  proof  of  notice  in  other  cases,  and  it  will  be 
sufficient  though  not  made  on  the  date  of  the  service,^^  or 
even  until  after  the  proceedings  on  the  lien  have  been  com- 
menced.^^ Where  the  claim  is  properly  filed,  and  the  lien  at- 
taches to  the  property,  all  payments  made  thereafter  are  sub- 
ject to  the  lien,^-*  that  is,  if  the  lien  is  filed  at  the  proper  time.^^ 
But  if  it  is  filed  prematurely,^^  or  improperly  filed,^'^  it  is  a 
nullity.     A  second  lien  filed  at  the  proper  time,  however,  will 


McGann,  4  Lack.  J.  (Pa.)  34,  12 
Dist.  (Pa.)  701.  Under  the  me- 
chanics' lien  law,  requiring  "the 
duplicate  copy  of  the  bill  of  par- 
ticulars to  be  served  on  the  party 
owing  the  debt,"  in  order  to  fix 
the  lien,  service  on  the  chairman 
of  an  Odd  Fellows'  building 
committee,  who  possesses  no 
other  powers  than  those  pertain- 
ing to  that  particular  undertak- 
ing, is  not  sufficient.  It  should 
be  served  on  a  principal  officer 
of  the  lodge.  McCreary  v.  Wa- 
co Lodge,  2  Posey  Unrep.  Cas. 
(Tex.)    675. 

6  Frost  V.  Rawson,  91  Iowa 
553,  60  N.  W.  131. 

■7  Mouat  V.  Fisher,  104  Mich. 
262,   62  N.  W.   338. 

8  Gillespie  v.  Remington,  66 
Tex.  108,  18  S.  W.  338. 


9  Deatherage  v.  Henderson,  43 
Kan.  684,  23  Pac.  1052. 

1"  Read  v.  Gillespie,  64  Tex.  42; 
Warren  v.  Smith,  44  Tex.  245. 

3 1  Alfred  Richards  Brick  Co.  v. 
Trott,    23    App.    D.    C.    284. 

1-  Smalley  v.  Northwestern 
Terra-Cotta  Co.,  113  Mich.  141, 
71   N.   W.   466. 

13  Fairbairn  v.  Moody,  116 
IMich.  61,  74  N.  W.  386. 

14  Kelly  V.  Bloomingdale,  139 
N.  Y.   343,  34  N.  E.   919. 

15  See  §  71. 

10  Mechanics',  &c.,  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Denny  Hotel  Co.,  6  Wash.  122. 
32   Pac.   1073. 

1"  Davis  V.  Livingston,  29  Cal. 
283;  Mulloy  v.  Lawrence,  31  Mo. 
583. 


237  STATEMENT NOTICE OWNER's   DUTY.  [§  91 

be  valid. ^*  Only  one  valid  claim  or  statement  can  be  filed. ^^ 
Where  the  statement  or  claim  is  to  be  filed  and  the  abstract 
made,2o  or  the  claim  is  to  be  recorded,  the  original  may  be 
withdrawn  after  it  is  recorded.-^  A  temporary  withdrawal 
even  where  it  is  not  proper  so  to  do,  will  only  affect  rights  of 
persons  who  may  be  injured  thereby.  If  notice  is  properly 
given,  it  is  good  as  to  all  having  notice,  especially  as  between 
the  original  parties.-^ 

§  91.  Upon  notice  owner  shall  retain  subsequent  payments 
due -contractor — Ohio  statute. — Section  3194  of  the  Ohio  Stat- 
ute provides  that  upon  receiving  the  notice  required  by  the 
preceding  section,  such  owner,  board  or  officer  or  public  au- 
thority or  authorized  clerk,  agent  or  attorney,  thereof,  shall 
detain  in  his  hands  all  subsequent  payments  from  the  princi- 
pal or  subcontractor  to  secure  such  claims  and  the  claims  and 
estimates  of  other  subcontractors,  material  men,  laborers,  me- 
chanics, or  persons  furnishing  materials  to  or  performing  labor 
for  any  contractor  or  subcontractor  who  may  intervene  before 
the  next  subsequent  payment  under  the  contract  or  within  ten 
days  thereafter. 1  When  the  owner  has  received  the 
notice  provided  for  in  Section  3193,-  then  he  is  bound 
to  retain  in  his  possession  whatever  funds  may  be 
due  to  the  principal  contractor.  If  one  subcontract- 
is  Mechanics'  Planing  ]\lill  Co.  i9  Hormann  v.  Wirtel,  59  Mo. 
V.    Nast,    7    Mo.   App.    147.  Where       App.   646. 

the  mechanics'  lieu  law  does  not  20  Bell  v.  Teague,  85  Ala.  211,  3 

provide  for  filing  joint  liens,  and       So.   861. 

no  community  of  interest  exists,  21  Mars  v.  McKay,  14  Cal.  127; 

an  attempt  to  file  a  joint  lien,  Bell  v.  Teague,  85  Ala.  211,  3  So. 
does  not  prevent  the  several  lien       861. 

claimants   from   filing  valid   indi-  22  Great    Spirit    Springs    Co.    v. 

vidual    liens.      Skyrme    v.    Occi-      Chicago     Lumber     Co.,     47     Kan. 
dental    &c.,    Mining    Co.,    8    Nev.      672,  28  Pac.  714. 
219;    see   also,  Chambers  v.   Yar-  199  Ohio  Laws,  501;    see  §128. 

nail,  15  Pa.  265;   Bournonville  v.  2  See   §59. 

Goodall,    10    Pa.     133;     Clark    v. 
^Miller,  14  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  227. 


§  92]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  238 

or  serves  the  notice,  and  there  is  more  in  the  own- 
er's hands  than  will  pay  this  one,  the  owner  may  pay  the 
balance  to  the  contractor.^  The  statute  simply  requires  him 
to  retain  what  may  become  due  under  the  contract  at  the  time 
the  notice  is  received.'*  If  the  claim  is  not  disputed  he  must 
pay  to  the  subcontractor.^  However,  it  seems  the  owner  is 
bound  to  retain  all  moneys  in  his  hands  for  ten  days  after 
such  notice  is  given,  and  this  will  permit  other  subcontractors 
to  participate  if  they  intervene  within  the  ten  days'  limit. ^^  The 
provision  should  be  construed  to  mean  that  he  must  hold  an 
unpaid  and  overdue  payment.*'  If  the  amounts  are  found  and 
ready  to  be  paid,  but  are  in  fact  not  paid,  but  retained  for  the 
benefit  of  those  filing  accounts,  this  appropriates  the  amount 
to  them  the  same  as  if  paid,  their  rights  are  fixed,  and  not 
changed  by  the  filing  of  subsequent  accounts." 

§  92.  Copy  of  statement  to  be  furnished  to  head  contractor : 
his  duty — Ohio  statute. — Section  3198  of  the  Ohio  statute  pro- 
vides that  the  owner,  board,  officer,  or  clerk,  agent  or  attorney 
thereof,  upon  the  receipt  of  such  statement,  shall,  or  the  lien 
claimant,  his  agent  or  attorney,  in  the  name  of  such  owner, 
board  or  officer,  may,  furnish  the  principal  contractor  or  sub- 
contractor with  a  copy  thereof,  within  five  days  after  receiving 
the  same,  and  if  such  principal  or  subcontractor  fail,  within 
live  days  after  such  receipt  by  him,  to  notify,  in  writing,  such 
owner,  board,  officer,  or  clerk,  agent  or  attorney  thereof  of  his 
intention  to  dispute  such  claim,  he  shall  be  considered  as  as- 
senting to  the  correctness  thereof,  and  thereupon  such  subse- 
quent payment  shall  be  applied  by  such  owner,  his  agent  or  at- 

3  McCullom     V.     Richardson,     2  (Re.)   441,,  13  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  542; 

Handy  (Ohio)   274.  ^^See  §  147. 

■i  Feldner   v.    Voight,    4    Am.    L.  6  Tollheis    v.    James,     11    Ohio 

Rec.  671;   5  Ohio  Dec.   (Re.)    336;  Dec.   (Re.)   213,  25  Wkly.  L.  Bull. 

5  Am.  L.  Rec.  1,  1  Ohio  L.  Bull.  277;     affirmed    4    Ohio    Cir.    Dec. 

116,  5  Ohio  Dec.  (Re.)  349,  7  Ohio  646;    7  Ohio  C.  C.  386. 

Dec.  (Re.)  109.  "  Cincinnati  v.  McNeely,  7  Ohio 

5  Busse    V.    Voss,    9    Ohio    Dec.  Dec.    (Re.)    216,  1  Wkly.  L.  Bull. 


239  NOTICE  TO  HEAD   CONTRACTOR OHIO  STATUTES.  [§92 

torney,  pro  rata,  upon  such  claim,  and  the  amounts,  when  due, 
of  such  claim  or  estimates  as  have  been  meanwhile  filed 
by  other  subcontractors,  material  men,  laborers,  mechanics  or 
persons  furnishing-  materials,  and  assented  to  or  adjusted  as 
provided  for  in  this  chapter,  before  the  first  of  such  subsequent 
payments  falls  due,  or  within  ten  days  thereafter ;  but  claims 
in  favor  of  laborers,  mechanics,  and  persons  furnishing  ma- 
terial to  a  contractor,  shall  be  paid  before  the  claims  of  sub- 
contractors, and  those  of  subcontractors  before  the  principal 
contractor. 1 

The  owner  is  not  only  bound  to  retain  payments  in  his  hand 
within  the  time  fixed  but  he  must  also  furnish  the  principal 
contractor  or  a  subcontractor,  against  whose  fund  the  claim  is 
asserted,  a  copy  of  the  claim  or  demand  which  has  been  given 
to  him  under  section  3193.^  And  then  if  such  contractor  or 
subcontractor  does  not  dispute  the  claim,  by  giving  a  notice 
to  that  effect  in  writing  to  the  owner,  the  owner  may  make  the 
payment  to  the  claimant,  being  careful,  however,  as  to  the 
rights  of  intervening  claimant. 

§  93.  Notice  to  head  contractor — Priority  of  liens — Ohio 
statute. — Under  a  previous  statute,  it  was  held,  that  the  sub- 
contractor who  first  filed  his  claim,  was  entitled  to  prior- 
ity. This  statute  curtails  that  right,  and  gives  all  who 
come  within  the  ten  days'  limit,  a  right  to  pro  rate.^  If 
subcontractors  file  claims  after  the  ten  day  limit,  and  there 
still  remains  a  balance  due  the  head  contractor,  such  subcon- 
tractor will  be  entitled  to  his  claim.-*  The  above  section  recog- 
nizes the  doctrine  that  any  person  who  stands  in  the  relation 
of  principal  contractor  to  one  under  him,  should  be  subordi- 
nated in  payment  to  such  person  employed  under  him, 

302.     For    payment    by    collusion,  St.  398;  Dunn  v.  Rankin,  27  Ohio 

or  fraud,  see  §  69.  St.  132. 

1  97  Ohio  Laws,  502.  4  Hayden     Saddlery     Hardware 

2  See  §59.  Co.  v.   Slade,   3    Ohio  C.   C.   67,   2 

3  Copeland   v.   Manton,   22   Ohio  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  38;  see  §147. 


93] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


240 


§  94.     Claim  or  statement — Time  within  which  to  be  filed. — 

The  statutes  are  not  uniform,  and  this  is  true  of  the  holdings  of  the 
courts  in  the  construction  of  the  various  statutes,  as  to  the  time 
within  which  the  statement  should  be  filed,  but  the  statutory  pro- 
vision in  reference  thereto  must  be  complied  with,  or  there  is 
no  lien.^  And  this  being  regarded  as  a  substantial  part  of  the 
lien  law,  it  has  been  held  that  it  must  be  strictly  construed.^ 
If  the  statute  allows  a  certain  length  of  time  in  which  the  state- 
ment may  be  filed,  the  motive  of  the  claimant  taking  the  en- 
tire length  allowed  by  statute,  cannot  be  questioned.^  When 
the  lien  is  to  be  filed  within  a  certain  time,  either  on  the  day 
on  which  the  last  work  is  done,  or  when  the  debt  accrues,  time 
is  computed  by  excluding  the  last  day  on  which  the  claim  may 
be  filed,'*  and  if  the  last  day  for  filing  falls  on  Sunday,  it  has 


1  Califoruia. — Ward  v.  Crane, 
118  Cal.  676,  50  Pac.  839;  Rockell 
V.  Light,  6  Cal.  App.  563,  92  Pac. 
649. 

Connecticut.  —  Shattuck  v. 
Beardsley,  46  Conn.   386. 

Delaware. — Carswell  v.  Patzow- 
ski,  3  Pen.  (Del.)  593,  55  Atl. 
1013. 

Indiana. — Alexandria  Bldg.  Co. 
V.  McHugh,  12  Ind.  App.  282,  39 
N.  E.   877,  40  N.  E.   80. 

Maine. — Foss  v.  Desjardins,  98 
Me.  539,  57  Atl.  881;  Billings  v. 
Martin   (Me.),  10  Atl.  445. 

Minnesota.— Lundell  v.  Ahl- 
man,   53   Minn.   57,   54   N.   W.   936. 

Missouri.— Stebed  v.  Stock,  31 
Mo.    456. 

IVew  York. — Collins  v.  Drew, 
67  N.  y.  149;  Chase  v.  James,  10 
Hun    (N.   Y.)    506. 

Ohio. — St.  Clair  Bldg.  Ass'n  t. 
Hayes,  2  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  225,  1 
Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  456. 

PennsjlTania. — Russell  v.  Bell, 
44    Pa.    47;    appeal    of    Bolton,    3 


Grant  Cas.  (Pa.)  204;  in  re 
Quickel's  Estate,  11  York  Leg. 
Rec.    (Pa.)    150. 

Utah.— Eclipse  Steam  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Nichols,  1  Utah,  252.  "Finished 
on  or  about"  when  used  in  act, 
sufficient.  Holden  v.  Bright  Pros- 
pects Gold  Mining  and  Develop- 
ment Co.,  6  Brit.  Col.  L.  R.  439. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechan- 
ics' Liens,  §    132. 

2  Ludwig  V.  Huverstuhl,  108  111. 
App.  461.  Cannot  be  extended  in 
new  contract.  Valley  Lumber  & 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Driessel,  13  Idaho  662, 
93   Pac.   765. 

3  Bohn  Sash  &  Door  Co.  v.  Case, 
42  Neb.  281,  60  N.  W.  576. 

^  California. — Santa  Monica 

Lumber  and  Mill  Co.  v.  Hege,  119 
Cal.  376,  51  Pac.  555. 

Oregon. — Curtis  v.  Sestanovich, 
26  Ore.  107,  37  Pac.  67. 

United  States. — In  re  :\Iartin,  4 
Fed.  208. 

Washington.  —  Seattle  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Sweeney,  33  Wash.  691,  74 
Pac.  1001. 


241 


STATEMENT WHEN   TO  BE   FILED. 


94 


been  held  that  it  should  be  filed  the  previous  Saturday.^  In 
the  absence  of  statute,  however,  some  courts  have  held  that 
the  first  day  on  which  an  act  can  be  done,  must  be  counted 
and  therefore  where  work  was  done  on  August  6th,  the  statute 
providing  that  the  claim  should  be  filed  within  nine  months, 
May  6th  following  was  one  day  too  late.*^  Neither  the  trans- 
fer,''' nor  the  incumbrance  of  the  property,^  nor  placing  the 
same  in  the  hands  of  a  receiver,^  nor  agreement  of  parties,  (as 
to  third  persons), ^*^  nor  death  of  the  owner,  where  the  contract 
has  been  or  is  being  performed,  and  where  the  statute  has 
been  otherwise  complied  with,^^  will  affect  the  time  within 
wdiich  the  lien  should  be  filed.  Likewise  a  change  in  the  per- 
sonnel of  the  contracting  firm  will  not  change  the  time  limit. ^2 
Under  some  statutes  it  is  decided  that  the  time  for  filing  the 
claim  begins  to  run  when  the  debt  is  due.^^  It  then  becomes 
material  to  determine  when  the  indebtedness  accrues  or  be- 
comes due,  and  this  has  generally  been  held  to  be  the  time 
when,   under   the   contract,   the   obligation   has   become    com- 


Wisconsin. — Cuer  v.  Ross,  49 
Wis.  652,  6  N.  W.  331.  Prom  date 
of  architects'  certificate — Shields 
V.  Sorg,  129  111.  App.  266,  judg- 
ment affirmed;  Sorg  v.  Crandall, 
233  111.  79,  84  N.  E.  181. 

The  lapse  of  a  day  between  the 
date  and  the  filing  of  an  affidavit 
and  claim  of  lien,  under  Mechan- 
ics' Lien  Act,  5,  will  not  invalidate 
the  affidavit  and  claim.  Fair- 
bairn  V.  Moody,  116  Mich.  61,  74  N. 
W.   386. 

5  Patrick  v.  Faulke,  45  Mo.  312. 

6  Jones  V.  Kern,  101  Ga.  309,  28 
S.  E.  850. 

7  Gale  V.  Blaikie,  126  Mass.  274; 
Conlee  v.  Clark,  14  Ind.  App.  205, 
42  N.  E.  762;  Marryatt  v.  Riley,  2 
Abb.  N.  C.   (N.  Y.)  119. 

8  Thompson  v.  Spencer,  95  Iowa 
265,  63  N.     W.     695;     Gilbert     v. 

16 


Tharp,  72  Iowa  714,  32  N.  W.  24. 

f>  Filer  &  Stowell  Co.  v.  Empire 
Lumber  Co.,  91  Ga.  657,  18  S.  W. 
359. 

I'J  Brown  v.  Moore,  26  111.  421, 
79  Am.  Dec.  383. 

iiWeithoff  V.  Murray,  76  Cal. 
508,   18    Pac.   435. 

12  Retirement  of  partner. — 
Brown  v.  School  Dist.,  48  Kan. 
709,  29  Pac.  1069.  Death  of  part- 
ner.— Miller  v.  Hoffman,  26  Mo. 
App.  199.  Contract  by  member  of 
firm,  in  his  own  name.  Van 
Horn  V.  Van  Dyke,  96  Wis.  30,  70 
N.  W.  1067. 

13  Schroth  V.  Black,  50  111.  App. 
168;  Sullivan  v.  Brewster,  1  E. 
D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  681;  Johnson  v. 
White  (Tex.),  27  S.  W.  174;  Jo- 
seph N.  Eisendrath  Co.  v.  Geb- 
hardt,  222  111.  113,  78  N.  E.  22. 


§94] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


242 


pletecl.^^  If  no  time  is  fixed  in  the  contract,  the  obligation  for 
materials  will  run  from  the  time  they  were  delivered,  and  for 
work,  when  it  is  done.^^  Where  material  is  delivered  at  dififer- 
ent  times  as  needed, — in  the  absence  of  special  contract, — the 
indebtedness  accrues  at  the   date  of  the  delivery  of.  the  last 


i-tCutcliff  V.  McAnally,  88  Ala. 
507,  7  So.  331;  General  Fire  Ex- 
tinguisher Co.  V.  Schwartz  Bros. 
Commission  Co.,  165  Mo.  171.  65  S. 
W.  318;  Great  Western  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Burns,  59  Mo.  App.  391,  1  Mo. 
App.  Rep'r,  52.  Material  for 
which  a  lien  on  land  is  claimed, 
held  to  have  been  "furnished"  on 
the  date  of  its  arrival  at  the  sta- 
tion of  destination,  and  the  pay- 
ment of  freight,  though,  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  consignee,  it  re- 
mained at  the  station  several  days 
thereafter.  Buchanan  v.  Selden, 
43  Neb.  559,  61  N.  W.  732. 
Defendant,  who  had  a  contract 
to  do  certain  work,  half  of  the 
price  to  be  paid  when  the  ma- 
terials were  shipped,  and  the 
balance  on  completion  of  the 
work,  subcontracted  with  plaint- 
iffs for  part  of  the  work.  Plaint- 
iffs were  to  be  paid  when  defend- 
ant should  receive  payment  un- 
der its  contract.  Plaintiffs'  claim 
was  due  on  completion  of  the 
subcontract,  so  as  to  entitle  them 
to  file  their  lien  then,  though  it 
was  not  payable  until  defendant 
had  fully  performed.  Ringle  v. 
Wallis  Iron  Works,  4  :Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  15,  24  N.  Y.  Supp.  757;  Hink- 
ley  V.  Grafton  Hall,  101  Wis.  699, 
76  N.  W.  1093;  Big  Horn  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Davis,  14  Wyo.  455,  84  Pac- 
900,  rehearing  denied,  85  Pac. 
1048. 


15  Robinson  v.  Marney,  5 
Blackf.  (Ind.)  329;  Clark  v.  An- 
derson, 88  Minn.  200,  92  N.  W. 
964.  Under  a  contract  to  make 
certain  machinery  and  deliver  it 
"free  on  board  of  cars"  at  a  desig- 
nated place,  for  a  stipulated  sum, 
the  machinery  is  furnished,  with- 
in the  meaning  of  our  mechanics' 
lien  law,  when  it  is  delivered  in 
accordance  with  the  contract,  on 
board  the  cars  at  the  place 
named,  without  expense  to  the 
purchaser;  and,  to  obtain  a  lien 
therefor,  the  claim  for  a  lien 
must  be  filed  within  four  months 
from  that  time.  Congdon  v.  Ken- 
dall, 53  Neb.  282,  73  N.  W.  659; 
Collins  V.  Drew,  50  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  477.  Rev.  St.  Ohio  3185, 
gives  a  lien  for  machinery  fur- 
nished in  the  construction  of  a 
factory  on  filing  an  affidavit  with- 
in four  months  from  the  time  of 
furnishing  it.  Held,  that  under  a 
contract  to  make  certain  ma- 
chinery and  furnish  it  "f.  o.  b. 
cars"  at  a  designated  place,  for  a 
stipulated  price,  the  machinery 
was  furnished,  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  statute,  when  it  was 
delivered  on  board  the  cars  at 
the  place  named,  without  ex- 
pense to  the  purchaser,  and,  in 
order  to  obtain  a  lien  therefor, 
it  was  necessary  to  file  an  affi- 
davit within  four  months  from 
that     time.       King    v.     Cleveland 


243  TIME   OF    FILING DATES    FROM    WHEN.  [§94 

item.^^  But  the  different  deliveries' must  appear  to  constitute 
parts  of  one  transaction,  the  determination  of  which  is  a  ques- 
tion of  fact  for  the  jury.^"  It  will  be  sufficient  to  date  from 
the  last  item,  even  though  all  of  such  item  did  not  enter  into 
the  construction  of  the  building-.^^  If  the  articles  were  pur- 
chased on  credit,  then  the  date  for  filing  will  be  the  expiration 
of  the  time  of  credit. ^^  Some  statutes  provide,  and  the  courts 
have  held  in  other  cases,  that  the  taking  of  a  note  does  not 
necessarily  prevent  the  filing  of  the  claim  within  the  time  lim- 
it.2o  The  time  cannot  be  extended  by  a  secret  arrangement, 
especially  if  the  rights  of  third  persons  are  affected.^i  If  the 
contract  provides  for  the  exchange  of  material,  and  no  one  is 
misled,  the  lien  will  be  in  time,  if  within  the  time  limit  from  the 
delivery  of  the  article  in  exchange,^^  but  if  material  is  ex- 
changed to  supply  the  place  of  defective  or  broken  material  be- 
fore furnished,  this  does  not  change  the  time  of  filing  to  the 
date  of  delivery  of  the  exchanged  article.^^  Increasing  wages, 
will  not  constitute  a  new  contract  so  as  to  extend  the  time  limit 

Shipbuilding  Co.,  50  Ohio  St.  320,  i7  Nye      &     Schneider     Co.     v. 

34     N.     E.     436;    Philadelphia    v.  Berger,  52  Neb.  758,  73  N.  W.  274. 

Slonaker,     6     Phila.      (Pa.)      48;  is  Schulenburg      &c..      Lumber 

Hooven,  Owens  &  Rentschler  Co.  Co.  v.  Strimple,  33  Mo.  App.  154. 

V.   Featherstone's    Sons,   111   Fed.  19  Goble     v.     Gale,     7     Blackf. 

81,  49   C.   C.  A.   229;    Morrison  v.  (Ind.)  218,  41  Am.  Dec.  219;  Laz- 

Carey-Lombard    Co.,    9    Utah    70,  zari  v.  Havens,  39  Misc.    (N.  Y.) 

33  Pac.  238.     The  lien  dates  from  255,    79    N.   Y.    Supp.    395;    In    re 

the  time  of  delivering  materials.  Hill's  Estate,  2  Clark.  (Pa.)  96,  3 

Hall  V.  Hagg,  20  Ont.  13.  Pa.  Law.  J.   (Pa.)   323. 

16  Board  of  Education  v.  Gelino,  20  Dawson    v.     Black,     148     111. 

9    Kan.    App.    555,    58    Pac.    277;  484,  36  N.   E.   413. 

General  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.  v.  21  Huck  v.  Gaylord,  50  Tex.  578. 

Schwartz    Bros.    Commission    Co.,  22  Coughlan      v.      Longini,      77 

165  Mo.  171,  65  S.  W.  318;  Miller  Minn.  514,  80  N.  W.  695. 

V.    Whitelaw,    28    Mo.    App.    639;  23  R.  j.   Schwab  &  Sons  Co.  v. 

Baxter  Lumber  Co.  v.  Nickell,  24  Frieze,    107    Mo.   App.    553,    81    S. 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  519,  60  S.  W.  450;  W.  1174;    Brown  &  Haywood  Co. 

Matthews       v.        Waggenhaeuser  v.  Trane,  98  Wis.  1,  73  N.  W.  561. 
Brewing  Ass'n,  83  Tex.  604,  19  S. 
W.  150. 


95] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


244 


for  filing,^'*  neither  will  the  fact  that  there  is  nothing  due  a 
contractor  at  the  time  a  statement  should  be  filed  by  a  subcon- 
tractor affect  the  time  limit.^^  If  filed  in  time  the  failure  of 
the  officer  with  whom  filed  to  indorse  it,  will  not  affect  the 
validity  of  the  lien  statement. ^^ 

§  95.    Claim  or  statement — Filing  on  completion  of  building. 

— Where  no  provision  is  made  for  determining  the  date  when 
the  time  would  expire  for  filing  the  claim  or  statement  on  work 
done  for  a  fixed  sum  under  an  entire  contract,  it  will  ordinarily 
be  presumed  to  be  when  all  the  work  required  by  the  contract 
is  finished,^  that  is,  upon  the  completion  of  the  job  or  building.^ 
The  parties  as  between  themselves,  may,  however,  agree  that 
the  building  is  completed  before  it  actually  is  in  fact  and  this 
will  control,^  provided  third  persons  are  not  injured  by  the 
arrangement.*  The  building  or  work  is  generally  completed 
when  the  principal  contractor  has  finished  the  building  or  part 


2  4  Kasper  v.  St.  Louis  Terminal 
R.  Co.,  101  Mo.  App.  323,  74  S. 
W.   145. 

23  Clark  V.  Anderson,  88  Minn. 
200,  92  N.  W.  964;  Rinaker  v. 
Freeman,  84  111.  App.  283. 

26  Red  River  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Friel,  7  N.  Dak.  46,  73  N.  W.  203. 

1  See  generally,  Edwards  v. 
Derrickson,  4  Dutch.  (N.  J.  L.) 
39;  Mathiasen  v.  Barken,  62  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  614,  70  N.  Y.  Supp. 
770;  McGraw  v.  Godfrey,  16  Abb. 
Pr.  (N.  S.)  (N.  Y.)  358;  Appeal  of 
Bolton,  3  Grant's  Cas.  (Pa.)  204. 
If  determined  by  occupation  of  the 
premises  by  the  owner,  the  oc- 
cupation must  be  inconsistent 
with  the  continuance  by  the  con- 
tractor of  the  contract.  Orlandi 
V.  Gray,  125  Cal.  372,  58 
Pac.  15;  Loudon  v.  Coleman,  62 
Ga.   146. 


Split  Demands. — A  workman 
who  undertakes  to  perform  an 
entire  contract  cannot  enforce  a 
lien  for  each  week's  wages.  He 
has  no  power  to  split  up  an  en- 
tire demand,  and  maintain  several 
suits,  and  enforce  several  liens. 
Thomas  v.  Illinois  Industrial  Uni- 
versity, 71  111.  310;  see  §49  and 
Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,   §  132. 

2  General  Fire  Extinguisher 
Co.  V.  Schwartz  Bros.  Commis- 
sion Co.,  165  Mo.  171,  65  S.  W- 
318;  Derrickson  v.  Edwards,  5 
Dutch,  (N.  J.  L.)  468,  80  Am. 
Dec.   220. 

3  Franklin  St.  Church  v.  Davis, 
85  Va.  193,  7  S.  E.  245. 

4  Jones  V.  Kruse,  138  Cal.  613, 
72   Pac.   146. 


245 


FILING COMPLETION  OF  BUILDING. 


[§95 


of  building  that  he  was  under  contract  to  build. ^  Where  the 
statute  makes  the  date  of  the  completion  of  the  building  the 
time  from  which  the  date  of  filing  the  lien  is  determined,  a 
statement  filed  before  that  time  wnll  be  void.*'  The  time  of 
completion  is  determined  by  reference  to  the  original  contract 
and  the  action  of  the  parties  in  relation  thereto."^  In  Nevada 
where  the  parties  have  a  direct  lien,  claims  filed  before  the 
completion  of  the  building  have  been  upheld  and  other  states 
by  statute  have  permitted  the  same  thing  to  be  done.^  Others 
allow  the  claimant  to  file  the  statement  within  a  fixed  time 
after  he  ceases  to  furnish  material.^  The  time  when  the  build- 
ing should  be  completed  according  to  contract  ought  not  to 
be  extended  by  unreasonable  delay.^^  But  if  the  delay  is  by 
request  or  fault  of  the  owner  he  cannot  complain. ^^    The  mere 


5  Malone  v.  Zielian,  1  Marv. 
(Del.)  285,  40  AtL  944;  Phoenix 
Iron  Co.  V.  The  Richmond,  6 
Mackey    (D.  C.)    180. 

6  California. — Davis  v.  MacDon- 
ough,  109  Cal.  547,  42  Pac.  450; 
Willamette  Steam  Mills,  &c.,  Co. 
V.  Los  Angeles  College  Co.,  94 
Cal.  229,  29  Pac.  629;  Roylance 
V.  San  Luis  Hotel  Co.,  74  Cal. 
273,  15  Pac.  777;  Perry  v.  Brain- 
ard    (Cal.),  8  Pac.  882. 

Colorado. — Tabor-Pierce  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  International  Trust  Co. 
(Colo.),  75  Pac.  150. 

Delaware. — Mulrine  v.  Wash- 
ington Lodge,  6  Houst.  (Del.)  350. 

Illinois. — Richardson  v.  Central 
Lumber  Co.,  112  111.  App.  160. 

Indiana.  —  Crawfordsville  v. 
Brundage,  57  Ind.  262. 

Kansas. — Higley  v.  Ringle,  57 
Kan.  222,  45  Pac.  619;  Chicago 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Tomlinson,  54  Kan. 
770,  39  Pac.  694;  Seaton  v.  Cham- 
berlain,  32   Kan.   239,   4   Pac.   89; 


Davis  V.  Bullard,  32  Kan.  234,  4 
Pac.  75;  Conroy  v.  Perry,  26 
Kan.  472. 

Federal. — Catlin  v.  Douglass, 
33  Fed.   569. 

7  Schwartz  v.  Knight,  74  Cal. 
432,  16  Pac.  235;  Whitcomb  v. 
Roll,  40  Ind.  App.  119,  81  N.  E. 
106. 

8  Hunter  v.  Truckee  Lodge,  14 
Nev.  24;  Heinlein  v.  Murphy,  3 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  47,  22  N.  Y.  Supp. 
713;  Guilfoyle  v.  Maclntyre,  11 
Montg.  Co.  L.  Rep'r  (Pa.)   12. 

9  General  Fire  Extinguisher 
Co.  V.  Chaplin,  183  Mass.  375,  67 
N.  E.  321;  Fitch  v.  Howitt,  32 
Ore.  396,  52  Pac.  192. 

10  Where  to  accommodate  ten- 
ants, a  little  work  requiring  only 
three  hours  to  perform  was  left 
to  be  done  later,  the  time  dated 
from  the  time  that  it  should  have 
been  finished.  Flint  v.  Raymond, 
41  Conn.  510. 

iiMcIntyre  v.  Trautner,  63 
Cal.  429  (defendant  would  not  ac- 


96] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


246 


fact  that  the  time  limit  within  which  a  Hen  could  ordinarily  be 
filed  has  elapsed,  will  not  of  itself  be  considered  unreasonable. 12 
But  if  the  contractor  does  work  after  the  time  w^hen  the  con- 
tract ought  to  be  completed  for  the  sole  purpose  of  extending 
the  time,  then  the  delay  is  unreasonable  and  will  defeat  his 
right.  ^2 

§  96.  Claim  or  statement — Filing  on  completion  of  building 
— continued. — \\'here  the  fact  of  the  completion  of  the  building 
determines  the  date  of  filing  a  lien  statement,  such  fact  is  de- 
termined like  other  questions  of  fact  on  the  trial. ^  If  it  is  sub- 
stantially  done   according   to   contract,^   and   the   owner   con- 


cept work) ;  Stidger  v.  McPh.ee, 
15  Colo.  App.  252,  62  Pac.  332; 
Flint  V.  Raymond,  41  Conn.  510. 
Plaintiff  built  a  steam  power 
plant  for  defendant  under  a  con- 
tract providing  that  final  settle- 
ment therefor  should  be  made  30 
days  after  the  machinery  was 
started.  That  event  occurred 
June  29th,  but  at  defendant's  re- 
quest plaintiff  continued  in 
charge  of  the  plant,  operating  the 
same  until  August  1st,  during 
which  time,  at  defendant's  re- 
quest he  furnished  extra  material 
and  did  extra  work, -the  last  on 
July  29th.  A  sworn  statement  of 
the  work  done  and  the  material 
furnished,  filed  by  plaintiff  Au- 
gust 13th,  to  secure  a  mechanics' 
lien,  was  filed  within  30  days 
after  the  work  was  performed 
and  materials  furnished  within 
Act  Ohio,  March  20,  1SS9  (86  Ohio 
Laws,  p.  128)  §  2,  relating  to  me- 
chanics' liens.  New  England  En- 
gineering Co.  V.  Oakwood  St.  R- 
Co.,  75  Fed.   162. 


12  Billings  Co.  v.  Brand,  187 
Mass.  417,  73  X.  E.  637. 

13  O'Driscoll  V.  Bradford,  171 
:\Iass.  231,  50  N.  E.  628. 

1  First  Presbyterian  Church  v. 
Santy,  52  Kan.  462,  34  Pac.  974, 
The  occupation  of  a  church  with 
pews  in  it  is  not  necessarily  an  ac- 
ceptance of  the  work.  Wood  v. 
Stringer,  20  Ont.  R.  148. 
Whether  a  building  was  com- 
pleted or  not,  on  a  given  date 
within  the  meaning  of  the  me- 
chanic's lien  law,  so  as  to  affect 
the  rights  of  lienors  will  be  de- 
termined by  what  common  intel- 
ligence and  common  usage  re- 
gard as  completion,  always,  how- 
ever, with  reference  to  the  build- 
ing contract.  Reggs  Inc.  Co.  v. 
Shedd,  16  App.  D.  C.  150. 

2  Joralman  v.  ^IcPhee,  31  Colo. 
26,  71  Pac.  419;  Hartley  v.  Rich- 
ardson, 40  Atl.  336,  91  Me.  424; 
Shaw  V.  Fjellman,  72  Minn.  465, 
75  X.  W.  705;  see  §49,  Perform- 
ance of  Contract. 


247 


STATEMENT COMPLETION    OF   BUILDING. 


:§96 


siders  it  finished,^  although  there  are  minor  details,'*  such  as 
grading  the  lot,^  or  fixing  floors,  door  steps,  mantels,  etc., 
worth  $75.00,  out  of  a  contract  price  of  $1,665,''  or  but  seven  or 
eight  hours'  work  remain  to  be  done,  the  building  may  be  con- 
sidered as  completed."  But  if  there  are  a  large  number  of 
things  to  be  done,  the  building  cannot  be  considered  as  com- 
pleted until  they  are  performed.^  The  fact  that  the  contract 
was  void  by  reason  of  not  being  recorded  as  the  statute  re- 
quired, will  not  prevent  its  use  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
when  the  building  ought  to  have  been  completed.^  The  acts 
of  the  parties  and  the  condition  of  the  building  itself  may  be 
considered  on  the  question  of  the  completion  of  the  work.^'^ 
Where  the  lien  statement  is  not  required  to  state  the  time  of 
the  completion  of  the  work  the  claimant  will  not  be  bound  by  a 
recital  therein  of  the  date  of  completion,  unless  it  was  made 


3  Minneapolis  Trust  Co.  v. 
Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  81  Minn. 
28,  83  N.  W.  463;  Watts-Campbell 
Co.  V.  Yuengling,  125  N.  Y.  1,  25 
N.  E.  1060;  Stewart  v.  McQuaide, 
48  Pa.  St.  191.  However,  as  to 
third  persons,  the  owners'  con- 
duct will  not  control.  Lichty 
V.  Houston  Lumber  Co.,  39  Colo. 
53,  88   Pac.   846. 

4  Santa  Monica  Lumber  «6;  Mill 
Co.  V.  Hege,  119  Cal.  376,  51  Pac. 
555. 

'>  Rice  V.  Brown,  1  Kan.  App. 
646,  42  Pac.  396. 

«  McMechan  v.  Baker,  11  N.  Y. 
Supp.  781. 

~>  Genest  v.  Las  Vegas  Masonic 
Bldg.  Ass'n,  11  N.  M.  251,  67  Pac. 
743. 

8  Buell  &  Co.  V.  Brown,  131 
Cal.  158,  63  Pac.  167.  Unless 
abandoned   by   owner.      Marchant 


V.  Hayes,  120  Cal.  137,  52  Pac. 
154;  Schallert-Ganahl  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Sheldon  (Cal.),  32  Pac.  235. 
A  building  is  not  completed, 
within  the  mechanic's  lien  law, 
so  as  to  affect  the  rights  of  lien- 
ors, where  there  was  a  down 
spout  to  be  placed  on  the  front, 
iron  shelves  to  be  placed  in  the 
vaults,  a  broken  plate-glass  win- 
dow to  be  replaced,  alterations  in 
the  marble  work  on  the  front  of 
the  building,  and  gas  fixtures  to 
be  hung,  all  of  which  were  re- 
quired by  the  contract.  Riggs 
Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Shedd,  16  App. 
(D.   C.)    150. 

9  Barker  v.  Doherty,  97  Cal.  10, 
31  Pac.  1117. 

1'^  General  Fire  Extinguisher 
Co.  V.  Schwartz  Bros.  Commis- 
sion Co.,  165  Mo.  171,  65  S.  W. 
318. 


§  97] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEX. 


248 


with  a  fraudulent  intent. ^^  If  the  contract  makes  completion 
depend  on  the  certificate  of  an  architect/-  or  of  a  superintend- 
ent,^3  or  other  authority,  such  certificate  will  conclusively  de- 
termine that  fact.^^ 

§  97.  Claim  or  statement — Items  to  renew  period  for  filing. — 
When  the  time  has  once  arrived  for  the  filing  of  the  state- 
ment, be  it  b}"  completion  of  the  building,  the  delivery  or  fur- 
nishing of  material,  performance  of  work,  the  maturity  of  the 
claim  or  accrual  of  indebtedness,  the  time  limit  cannot  be 
changed  or  extended  b}'  materials  furnished  thereafter  or  work 
thereafter   performed.^      If  an   item   furnished  is  part  of  the 


11  Burleigh  Bldg.  Co.  v.  Mer- 
chant Brick,  &e,  Co.,  13  Colo.  App. 
455,  59  Pac.  83;  Eller  v.  Cam- 
bridge Springs  Co.,  IS  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  44. 

12  McLaughlin  v.  Perkins,  102 
Cal.  502,  36  Pac.  839;  Weber  v. 
Bushnell,  171  111.  587,  49  N.  E. 
72S;  Washington  Bridge  Co.  v. 
Land  &  River  Imp.  Co.  of  Ev- 
erett, 12  Wash.  272,  40  Pac.  982; 
Bentley  v.  Adams.  92  Wis.  386,  66 
X.  W.  505. 

13  Beatty  v.  Mills,  113  Cal.  312, 
45   Pac.   468. 

1-1  General  Fire  Extinguisher 
Co.  V.  Schwartz  Bros.  Commis- 
sion Co.,  165  Mo.  171,  65  S.  W. 
318;  Bruns  v.  Braun,  35  Mo.  App. 
337;  Smith  v.  New  York,  32 
Misc.  (X.  Y.)  380,  66  X.  Y.  S. 
686;  Franklin  Bank  v.  Cincinnati, 
10  Ohio  Dec.  545. 

1  Joost  V.  Sullivan,  111  Cal. 
286,  43  Pac.  896.  Frame  in  cellar. 
Lippert  v.  Lasar  (Cal.),  33  Pac. 
797.  S7.00  worth  of  work  on 
$4,700  job.  Santa  Clara  Valley 
Mill  &  Lumber  Co.  v.  Williams, 
97   Cal.    318,   31   Pac.   1128.     Two 


bolts  delivered  60  days  after 
building  was  finished.  Barrows 
V.  Knight,  55  Cal.  155;  Burleigh 
Bldg.  Co.  V.  Merchant  Brick  & 
Building  Co.,  13  Colo.  App.  455, 
59  Pac.  S3.  House  finished  April 
7,  a  few  hours'  work  Sept.  27. 
Sanford  v.  Frost,  41  Conn.  617. 
A  few  hours'  painting  on  porch. 
Flint  V.  Raymond,  41  Conn.  510. 
Gas  fixtures  and  electric  bells. 
Brown  v.  Waring.  1  App.  (D.  C.) 
378.  Supplying  an  omission.  St. 
Louis  Xat.  Stock  Yards  v.  O'Reil- 
ly, 85  111.  546;  Hassenfus  v.  Phil- 
adelphia Packing,  etc.,  Co.,  15  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  R.  650,  4  Dist.  R.  (Pa.) 
57.  Putting  on  hasps,  adding 
screws,  one  hour's  work.  Wood- 
ruff V.  Hovey,  91  Me.  116,  39  Atl. 
469.  Friendly  acts  of  accom- 
modation. Cole  V.  Clark,  85  Me. 
336,  27  Atl.  186,  21  L.  R.  A.  714; 
Miller  v.  Wilkinson,  167  Mass. 
136,  44  N.  E.  1083.  Two  hours' 
work,  three  and  one-half  months 
after  apparent  completion.  Day- 
ton V.  Minneapolis  Radiator  & 
Iron  Co..  63  Minn.  48,  65  X.  W. 
133.     Articles  exchanged.     John- 


249 


ITEMS  TO  RENEW  PERIOD  OF  FILING. 


:§97 


original  contract,  the  furnishing  of  that  item  may,  even  though 
the  contract  was  partly  completed,  extend  the  time.^  As  be- 
tween original  parties,  where  items  are  furnished  after  the 
building  is  completed  under  an  original  contract,  the  time  limit 


son  V.  Gold,  32  Minn.  53.5,  21  N. 
W.  719.  Where  the  work  on  a 
building  is  substantially  com- 
pleted, and  the  contractor  tend- 
ers the  same  as  complete,  and  it 
is  so  accepted  by  the  owner,  the 
contractor  cannot  afterwards, 
against  the  will  of  the  owner, 
perform  some  part  that  was 
called  for  in  the  contract,  but 
which  has  been  omitted  in  the 
construction,  and  thereby  ex- 
tend the  statutory  period  after 
the  completion  of  the  work  with- 
in which  a  mechanic's  lien  must 
be  filed-  General  Fire  Ex- 
tinguisher Co.  V.  Schwartz  Bros. 
Commission  Co.,  165  Mo.  171,  65 
S.  W.  318.  Minor  details  done 
after  acceptance  of  building,  on 
promise  then  made  by  contractor 
to  do  same.  General  Fire  Ex- 
tinguisher Co.  V.  Schwartz  Bros. 
Commission  Co.,  165  Mo.  171,  65 
S.  W.  318.  Out  house,  not 
erected  under  contract  for  main 
building.  Krah  v.  Weidlich,  55 
Mo.  App.  536.  Putting  weather 
strips  on  window.  Scott  v.  Cook, 
8  Mo.  App.  193.  Work  done  to 
complete  work  made  necessary 
by  general  contractor.  Hayden 
Slate  Co.  V.  Anderson,  76  Mo. 
App.  281.  Furnishing  gratuitous 
articles.  Congdon  v.  Kendall,  53 
Neb.  282,  73  N.  W.  659.  Oiling 
top  floor.  Steuerwald  v.  Gill,  83 
N.  Y.  Supp.  396,  85  App.  Div.  605. 
Work  done  as  a  mere  pretext,  to 


extend  time.  Kelly  v.  William 
.J.  Merritt  Co.,  68  X.  Y.  Supp.  774; 
Duffy  V.  Baker,  17  Abb.  N.  Cas. 
(N.  Y.)  357;  McLean  v.  Sanford, 
26  App.  Div.  (X.  Y.)  603,  51  N. 
Y.  Supp.  678.  Work  done  to  re- 
pair that  destroyed  by  acts  of 
others.  Fay  v.  Muhlker,  1  Misc. 
(X.  Y.)  321,  20  N.  Y.  Supp.  671. 
A  glass  tube  in  a  fire  extinguish- 
er. King  V.  Cleveland  Shipbuild- 
ing Co.,  50  Ohio  St.  320,  34  X.  E. 
436;  General  Fire  Extinguisher 
Co.  V.  Schwartz  Bros.  Commis- 
sion Co.,  165  Mo.  171,  65  S.  W. 
318.  Work  to  replace  defective. 
Harrison  v.  Women's  Homeo- 
pathic Hospital  Ass'n,  134  Pa.  St. 
558,  19  Atl.  804,  26  W.  X.  C.  84; 
Women's  Homeopathic  Ass'n  v. 
Harrison,  120  Pa.  St.  28,  13  Atl. 
501;  Berry  v.  Turner,  45  Wis. 
105;  Summers  v.  Beard,  24  Ont. 
R.  641;  Avery  v.  Butler,  30  Ore. 
287,  47  Pac.  706.  Repairing  leak 
in  roof.  Dunn  v.  McKee,  37  Tenn. 
657;  Gaboon  v.  Fortune  Min.  & 
Mill  Co.,  26  Utah  86,  72  Pac.  437. 
Water  pan.  Home  Brewing  Co. 
v.  Johnson  (Ind.  App.),  83  X.  K 
358.  Forty  cents  worth  of  ma- 
terial. Valley  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Xickerson,  13  Idaho  682,  93 
Pac.  24. 

-'  California. — Coss  v.  MacDon- 
ough,  111  Cal.  662,  44  Pac.  325. 

Connecticut. — Xichols  v.  Cul- 
ver,   51   Conn.   177. 

Ma'ssachusetts.  —  Hubbard     v. 


§98] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


250 


may  be  extended  from  date  of  said  last  item.^  If  the  building 
is  in  fact  completed,  but  the  owner  will  not  accept  the  same 
until  some  item  is  furnished,  then  the  building  will  not  be 
considered  completed  until  the  time  such  item  is  furnished.^ 
The  fact  that  the  material  was  not  in  fact  used,  if  the  party  be- 
lieved and  had  a  right  to  believe  that  it  was  used,  he  would 
have  a  right  to  file  his  lien  dating  from  the  time  such  material 
was  delivered.*^  The  principal  contractor  cannot  extend  the 
time  for  the  material  man  by  ordering  material  after  time  has 
begun  to  run."  If  a  lien  will  not  cover  all  the  items  therein 
set  forth  because  all  are  not  within  the  time  limit,  it  will  be 
good  as  to  those  which  are  within  the.  time  limit,^  and  if  no 
time  is  fixed  for  delivery,  the  claimant  may  choose  his  time.^ 
The  abandonment  of  an  improvement  is  generally  considered  as 
fixing  the  rights  of  the  parties  at  that  date,  so  far  as  the  time 


Brown,  8  Allen  (Mass.)  590;  Tur- 
ner V.  Wentwortli,  119  Mass.  459. 

MicbigJin. — Smalley  v.  Gearing, 
121  Mich.  190,  206,  79  N.  W.  1114. 

Missouri. — Bruce  v.  Berg,  8  iMo. 
App.  204. 

jVew  York. — Fay  v.  Muhlker,  1 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  321,  20  N.  Y.  Supp. 
671;  Duffy  v.  Baker,  17  Abb.  N. 
Cas.  (N.  Y.)  357.  Under  Rev.  St. 
3185,  providing  that  to  obtain  a 
mechanic's  lien  an  affidavit  shall 
be  filed  within  a  certain  time 
from  the  performing  of  the  labor 
or  furnishing  of  the  material, 
where  a  contract  to  slate  a  roof 
is  entire,  and  it  is  a  uniform  rule 
and  custom  that  such  contract 
includes  the  repairing  of  the 
slating  necessitated  by  the  sub- 
sequent work  on  the  building 
during  its  construction,  the  time 
during  which  a  lien  for  the  slat- 
ing may  be  taken,  runs  from  the 


completion  of  the  repairs.  Berns- 
dorf  V.  Hartway,  7  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 
378. 

■i  Farnham  v.  Richardson,  91 
Me.  559,  40  Atl.  553;  McKelvey  v. 
Jarvis,  87  Pa.  St.  414;  Appeal  of 
Parrish,  83  Pa.  St.  Ill;  Johns  v. 
Bolton,  12  Pa.  St.  339. 

5  Minneapolis  Trust  Co.  v. 
Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  74  Minn. 
30,  76  N.  W.  953. 

•5  John  Paul  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Hormel,  61  Minn.  303,  63  N.  W. 
718. 

"  Sulzer-Vogt  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Rushville  Water  Co.,  160  Ind.  202, 
65  N.  E.  583;  Trueblood  v.  Shell- 
house,  19  Ind.  App.  91,  49  N.  E. 
47. 

s  Powell  V.  Nolan,  27  Wash.  318, 
67  Pac.  712;  Steeves  v.  Sinclair, 
171  N.  Y.  676,  64  N.  E.  1125; 
Kenyon  v.  Peckham,  10  R.  I.  402. 

0  Burrell  v.  Way,  176  Mass.  164, 
57   N.   E.   335. 


251 


EFFECT  OF  SUCCESSIVE  DELIVERIES. 


[§98 


for  filing  a  statement  may  be  concerned. ^'^  The  fact  that  the 
owner  was  protected  by  a  contractor's  bond  does  not  affect 
this  matter. ^1  Under  some  statutes  it  is  held  that  the  actual 
cessation  of  the  work,^^  or  termination  of  the  same  by  the  act 
of  the  owner,  when  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  claimant, 
will  fix  that  as  the  time  of  the  termination  of  the  contract,  and 
the  date  by  which  the  filing  of  the  statement  will  be  governed. ^^ 

§  98.  Claim  or  statement — effect  of  successive  deliveries  on 
time  for  filing. — It  is  sometimes  a  matter  of  considerable  diffi- 
culty to  determine  the  time  for  filing  a  lien  or  statement  where 
the  work  is  done  or  materials  furnished  at  successive  times. 
Generally  where  the  work  is  done  or  the  materials  furnished 
at  different  times  under  a  continuing  contract,  they  are  con- 
sidered as  done  or  furnished  under  one  contract,^  and  the  time 
besrins  to  run  from  the  last  act  done  in  the  execution  of  the 


10  Johnson  v.  LaGrave,  102 
Cal.  324,  36  Pac.  651;  Kerckhoff- 
Cuzner  Mill  &  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Olmstead,  85  Cal.  80,  24  Pac.  648; 
Catlin  V.    Douglass,   33   Fed-    569. 

11  Shaw  V.  Stewart,  43  Kan. 
572,  23  Pac.  616. 

12  Colorado. — Perkins  v.  Boyd, 
37  Colo.   265,  86  Pac.  1045. 

£ansas. — Main  Street  Hotel 
Co.  V.  Horton  Hardware  Co.,  56 
Kan.  448,  43  Pac.  769;  Chicago 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Merrimack  River 
Sav.  Bank,  52  Kan.  410,  34  Pac. 
1045. 

Minnesota — McCarthy  v.  Groff, 
48  Minn.  325,  51  N.  W.  218;  Pon- 
der V.  Safety  Building  &  Loan  Co., 
22  Ky.  L.  1074,  59  S.  W.  523. 

13  Pedretti  v.  Stichenoth,  6  Ohio 
Cir.  Ct.  R.  516;  McEwen  v.  Union 
Bank  &  Trust  Co.,  35  Mont.  470, 
90  Pac.  359.  A  subcontractor, 
who       was       informed       several 


months  before  by  the  con- 
tractors that  they  had  had 
trouble  with  the  architect, 
and  who  knew  that  the  work  had 
been  abandoned,  and  the  house 
boarded  up,  is  put  on  inquiry 
as  to  whether  the  contract  with 
the  owner  was  abandoned,  so 
that,  it  having  been  abandoned, 
his  work  thereafter  performed 
can  not  be  considered  done  under 
his  contract  with  the  contractors, 
for  the  purpose  of  determining 
the  time  for  filing  his  lien. 
Naughton  Slate  Co.  v.  Nicholson, 
97    Mo.    App.    332,    71    S.    W.    64; 

1  Maryland.  —  Okisko  Co.  v. 
Matthews,  3  Md.  168. 

Michigan. — Union  Trust  Co.  v. 
Casserly,  127  Mich.  183,  86  N.  W. 
545,  8  Det.  Leg.  N.  278. 

Minnesota. — State  Sash  &  Door 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Norwegian-Danish 
Evangelical    Lutheran    Augsburg 


§98] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


252 


contract.-  As  to  what  will  constitute  a  running  or  continuous 
contract,  is  a  matter  of  some  difficulty.  Instances  of  what 
have  been  held  such  contracts  are  given  in  the  note.^     The 


Seminary,  45  Minn.  254,  47  N.  W- 
796. 

Missouri. — Walden  v.  Robert- 
son, 120  Mo.  38,  25  S.  W.  349; 
Fulton  Iron  Works  v.  North  Cen- 
tre Creek  Min.  &  Smelting  Co., 
80  Mo.  265;  Squires  v.  Fithlan,  27 
Mo.  134. 

>'ebraska. — Nye  &  Schneider 
Co.  V.  Berger,  52  Neb.  758,  73  N. 
W.  274. 

;\eTV  York. — Spencer  v.  Barnett, 
35  N.  Y.  94;  Haden  v.  Budden- 
siek,  6  Daly  (N.  Y.)  3. 

Pennsjirania, — Croskey  v.  Cor- 
yell, 2  Whart.    (Pa.)   223. 

Wisconsin. — Dorestan  v.  Kreig, 
66  Wis.  604,  29  N.  W.  576.  Sepa- 
rate contracts  cannot  be  tacked. 
Valley  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Driessell,  13  Idaho  662,  93  Pac. 
765,   15  L.   R.  A.    (N.   S.)    299n. 

2  Alabama. — Lane  &  Bodley  Co. 
V.  Jones,  79  Ala.  156. 

Idaho. — Valley  Lumber  &  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Driessel,  13  Idaho  662,  93 
Pac.  765,  15  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.)  299n. 

Kansas. — Great  Spirit  Springs 
Co.  V.  Chicago  Lumber  Co.,  47 
Kan.  672,  28  Pac.  714. 

Louisiana. — Brashear  v.  Alex- 
andria Cooperage  Co.,  50  La. 
Ann.  587,  23  So.  240. 

Missouri. — Schmeiding  v.  Ew- 
ing,  57  Mo.  78;  Darlington  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Harris,  107  Mo.  App. 
148,  80  S.  W.  688;  Heltzell  v. 
Chicago,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  20  Mo.  App. 
435. 

Pennsylyania,  —  Bartlett        v. 


Kingan,  19  Pa.  St.  341;  Brick  Co. 
V.  Norton,  2  Pa.  Dist.  559;  In  re 
Hill's  Estate,  2  Clark  (Pa.)  96. 
3  Pa.  L.  J.  323;  Geiss  v.  Rapp. 
1  Walker  (Pa.)  Ill,  14  Leg.  Int. 
(Pa.)   116. 

Tennessee.  —  Bristol  Brick 

Works  V.  King  College  (Tenn.) 
Ch.  App.),  41  S.  W.  1069. 

Virginia.  —  Osborne  v.  Big 
Stone  Gap  Colliery  Co.,  96  Va. 
58,  30  S.  E.  446. 

3  Ballou  V.  Black,  17  Neb.  389, 
23  N.  W.  3.  A  lumber  dealer  was 
furnishing  lumber  for  a  building 
in  the  course  of  erection  under 
contract.  The  contractor  applied 
at  the  lumber  yard  for  certain 
pieces  of  lumber,  stating  that  the 
immediate  purpose  for  which  he 
wanted  them  was  to  prop  up  the 
brick  walls;  that  he  might  use 
them  in  the  erection  of  the  build- 
ing; that  if  he  did  not  use  them 
in  building  he  would  return 
them;  that  if  he  did  use  them  he 
would  notify  the  lumberman,  so 
that  he  might  charge  them  up. 
Four  days  after  the  delivery  of 
the  last  material  for  said  build- 
ing by  the  lumber  dealer  other 
than  the  pieces  of  lumber  in 
question,  the  contractor  applied 
at  the  office  of  the  dealer,  told 
him  that  he  had  used  the  said 
pieces  of  lumber  in  the  building, 
and  to  charge  them  up.  Held 
that,  for  the  purpose  of  the  me- 
chanic's lien  law,  the  said  pieces 
of  lumber  were  furnished  at  the 


253  STATEMENT SUCCESSIVE  DELIVERIES.  [§  98 

question  whether  the  contract  is  a  single  or  continuing  con- 


date  of  the  notification  of  the 
lumber  dealer  by  the  contractor 
that  he  had  used  them  in  the 
building  and  to  charge  them  up. 
Marble  v.  Jones,  &c.,  Lumber  Co., 
19  Neb.  732,  28  N.  W.  309.  Where 
a  contractor  entered  into  an 
agreement  with  a  material  man 
whereby  the  latter  was  to  fur- 
nish all  the  material  of  a  certain 
kind  for  a  building  without  any 
specific  quantity  being  designated, 
and  such  material  is  delivered  to 
the  contractor  from  time  to  time, 
the  time  for  filing  a  lien  claim 
commences  to  run  from  the  last 
delivery.  Smalley  v.  Gearing, 
121  Mich.  190,  79  N.  W.  1114,  80 
N.  W-  797.  A  running  account 
for  materials  furnished  for  the 
same  general  purpose  is  deemed 
an  entire  contract.  Each  item  is 
not  to  be  regarded  as  a  separate 
cause  of  action,  but  the  whole 
rather  as  a  continuous  dealing, 
the  aggregate  of  the  items  being 
included  in  the  same  cause  of 
action  for  which  one  lien  is  given. 
Frankoviz  v.  Smith,  34  Minn.  403, 
26  N.  W.  225;  see  also,  Skyrme  v. 
Occidental  Mill  Co.,  8  Nev.  219; 
Lamb  v.  Hanneman,  40  Iowa  41; 
Schmeiding  v.  Ewing,  57  Mo.  78; 
O'Leary  v.  Burns,  53  Miss.  171. 
Separate  Orders. — If  the  mate- 
rials were  furnished  in  pursu- 
ance of  a  single  continuing  con- 
tract, such  as  to  furnish  material 
for  a  building  about  to  be  erected 
or  in  process  of  construction,  the 
period  within  which  the  state- 
ment must  be  filed  with  the  judge 
of  probate  commences  to  run 
from   the   deliyery     of     the     last 


items.  But,  if  the  materials  were 
furnished  under  separate  orders 
or  requests,  in  pursuance  of  a 
general  agreement  or  under- 
standing to  furnish  such  mate- 
rials as  may  be  needed  from  time 
to  time,  for  repairing  or  replac- 
ing machinery  in  the  mill  as  or- 
dered, then  each  order  or  request 
is  a  separate  contract,  and  the 
statement  must  be  filed  within 
the  time  limited  after  delivery 
upon  each  order.  Lane  &  Bodley 
Co.  v.  Jones,  79  Ala.  156.  Where 
a  contract  is  made  for  material 
to  be  delivered  from  time  to  time, 
as  required  in  the  repairs  of 
buildings,  and  the  material  in 
accordance  therewith  is  fur- 
nished as  orders  therefor  are  re- 
ceived, each  order  is  not  an  inde- 
pendent contract,  so  as  to  re- 
quire a  separate  lien  to  be  filed 
within  the  required  time  after  the 
delivery  of  each  order.  Premier 
Steel  Co.  V.  McElwaine-Richards 
Co.,  144  Ind.  614,  43  N.  E.   876. 

Balance  Struck. — The  lumber 
dealer  at  the  end  of  the  first  year 
struck  a  balance  and  carried  it 
on  to  the  next.  No  lumber  was 
called  for  from  October  31st  of 
the  first  year  till  July  20th  of  the 
second,  when  the  lessee  came  to 
see  the  lumber  dealer  in  rela- 
tion to  it.  Held,  no  evidence  of 
two  distinct  contracts.  Haines  v. 
Chandler,  26  111.  App.  400.  Mere 
knowledge  that  a  building  is  be- 
ing built,  and  the  supplying  of 
orders  for  suitable  materials, 
will  not  constitute  a  "continu- 
ing" or  "entire"  contract,  within 
the    meaning    of    the    mechanic's 


§98] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


254 


tract  is  one  of  fact  for  the  jury.'*  In  order  to  constitute  a  con- 
tinuing contract,  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  amount  of  work  or 
materials  to  be  determined  at  the  time  of  the  first  order,^  nor 
that  the  price  be  agreed  upon,*^  nor  the  time  of  payment  set- 
tled.' If  there  is  a  hiatus  between  the  items  sufBcient 
to  permit  the  filing  of  a  lien,  the  claimant  relying  on  a  con- 
tinuing contract  must  prove  that  fact.  There  is  no  presump- 
tion that  all  the  materials  were  furnished  under  one  contract.^ 
The  affidavit  attached  to  the  lien  does  not  determine  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  or  not  the  contract  is  a  continuous  contract.^ 
In  cases  where  the  length  of  time  between  the  furnishing  of  dif- 
ferent articles  extends  beyond  the  time  limit, ^^  and  the  contract 
is  not  entire,  a  separate  statement  should  be  filed  for  liens  or 
materials  furnished,  and  work  done  within  each  separate  time 
limit. 1^  The  fact  that  monthly  statements  w^ere  rendered  and 
miscellaneous  payments  made,  will  not  prevent  the  contract 
from  being  a  continuous  one.^^      /\s  a  general  rule  it  may  be 


lien  law.     Stone  v.   Juvinall,  125 
111.     App.     562.     See     generally 
Maryland  Brick  Co.  v.  Dunkerly, 
85   Md.   199,   36  Atl.   761;    Robock 
V.  Peters,  13  Manitoba  124. 

4  Helena  Steam-Heating  & 
Supply  Co.  V.  Wells,  16  Mont  65, 
40  Pac.  78;  Nye  &  Schneider  Co. 
V.  Berger  52  Neb.  758,  73  N.  W. 
274. 

5  Maryland. — Hensel  v.  John- 
son, 94  Md.   729,  51   Atl.   575. 

Minnesota — Couglan  v.  Lon- 
gini,  77  Minn.  514,  80  N.  W.  695 
extras  included;  St.  Paul  Pressed 
Brick  Co.  v.  Stout,  45  Minn.  327, 
47  N.  W.  974. 

Pennsjirania. — Diller  v.  Burg- 
er,  68   Pa.   St.   432. 

South  Dakota —  Albright  v. 
Smith,  2  S.  Dak.  577,  51  N.  W. 
590. 


Wisconsin. — Chapman  v.  Wad- 
leigh,  33  Wis.  267. 

«  Perkins  v.  Boyd,  16  Colo. 
App.  266,  65  Pac.  350;  Hensel  v. 
Johnson,  94  Md.  729,  51  Atl.  575. 

"  Patton  V.  Matter,  21  Ind.  App. 
277,   52   N.   E.    173. 

8  Darlington  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Harris,  107  Mo.  App.  148,  80  S. 
W.  688;  Henry,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Fish- 
erdick,  37  Neb.  207,  55  N.  W. 
643. 

9  Henry.  &c.,  Co.  v.  Fisherdick, 
37  Neb.  207,  55  N.  W.  643. 

10  Wilson  V.  Forder,  30  Pa.  St. 
129. 

iiHudnit  V.  Roberts,  10  Phila. 
(Pa.)  535,  31  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  333; 
Darlington  Lumber  Co.  v.  Harris, 
107   Mo.   App.   148,    80   S.   W.    688. 

12  Cary  Hardware  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Carty,  10  Colo.  App.  200,  50  Pac. 
744. 


255 


STATEMENT SUCCESSIVE  DELIVERIES. 


S98 


stated  that  deliveries,  even  if  made  under  separate  contracts, 
if  the  work  is  continuous,  will  be  considered  as  one  and  the 
time  limit  for  filing  will  date  from  the  last  item  furnished. ^^ 
But  the  contract  cannot  be  considered  continuous  if  an  inter- 
regnum of  six  months  intervenes  between  deliveries,^^  nor  in 
any  case  can  successive  deliveries  under  separate  contracts  be 
included  in  one  statement,  if  it  worked  a  fraud  on  interested 
parties.^5  If  the  contracts  are  separate  and  disconnected  in 
their  performance,  the  time  will  date  from  the  delivery  made 
under  each  contract. ^*^ 


13  Iowa, — Jones,  &c.,  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Murphy,  64  Iowa  165,  19 
N.  W.  898. 

Massachusetts.  —  Worthen  v. 
Cleaveland,  129  Mass.  570;  Miller 
V.  Batchelder,  117  Mass.  179. 

Minnesota.  —  Frankoviz  v. 
Smith,  34  Minn.  403,  26  N.  W. 
225. 

Missouri. — Livermore  v.  "Wright, 
33  Mo.  31;  Kern  v.  Pfaff,  44  Mo. 
App.  29;  Kearney  v.  Wurdeman, 
33    Mo.   App.   447. 

AeTada — Capron  v.  Strout,  11 
Nev.  304;  Skyrme  v.  Occidental 
Mill  &  Min.  Co.,  8  Nev.  219. 

Pennsylvania, — Smaltz  v.  Hagy, 
4    Phila.    (Pa.)    99. 

14  Gilbert  v.  Tharp,  72  Iowa 
714,   32  N.   W.   24. 

15  Wood  v.  Haney  (Tenn.  Ch. 
App.),  41  S.  W.  1072. 

le  Iowa. — Chase  v.  Carver  Coal 
&  Min.  Co.,  90  Iowa  25,  57  N.  W. 
648. 

Maryland. — Watts  v.  Whitting- 
ton,  48  Md.  353. 

3Iassachusetts.  —  Worthen  v. 
Cleaveland,   129   Mass.   570. 

Michigan.— Noye  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Thread  Flouring-Mills  Co.,  110 
Mich.  161,  67  N.  W.  1108. 


Minnesota. — Scheible  v.  Schick- 
ler,   63   Minn.   471,   65   N.   W.   920. 

Missouri.  —  Schulenburg  v. 
Vrooman,  7  Mo.  App.  133. 

Nebraska. — Central  Loan  & 
Trust  Co.  V.  O'Sullivan,  44  Neb. 
834,  63  N.  W.  5. 

Pennsylvania,  —  Yearsley  v. 
Flanigen,  22  Pa.  St.  489. 

Khode  Island. — Sweet  v.  James, 
2  R.  I.  270. 

Washington. — Pacific  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Brown,  8  Wash.  347,  36  Pac. 
273. 

AVisconsin. — Brown  v.  Edward 
P.  Allis  Co.,  98  Wis.  120,  73  N. 
W.   656. 

Manitoba. — Chadwick  v.  Hunt- 
er, 1  Manitoba  39. 

Where  lumber  was  furnished 
between  November  18,  1895,  and 
the  following  March,  and  a  note 
therefor  was  given  on  account, 
and  a  payment  made  thereon,  and 
in  the  following  May  more  lum- 
ber was  furnished  on  a  similar 
order,  and  used  on  the  same 
building,  the  two  transactions 
were  separate,  and  a,  notice  of 
lien,  filed  within  90  days  after  the 
furnishing  of  the  last  item,  was 
sufficient   to    establish   a   lien    as 


99] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


256 


^  99.  Claim  or  statement — extras — contractors  and  subcon- 
tractors— amendments  as  to  time  of  filing. — If  extra  work  is 
done  or  extra  material  furnished  without  special  contract  in  the 
execution  of  the  principal  contract,  they  will  be  considered  as 
part  of  the  principal  contract  and  the  time  for  filing  the  state- 
ment will  date  from  the  day  when  the  extras  were  furnished.^ 
But  if  such  extras  are  furnished  after  the  principal  contract  has 
been  executed  in  full,  the  time  will  not  be  extended  from  the  date 
of  the  furnishing  of  such  extras. ^  And  in  no  case  can  the 
parties  by  agreement,  to  the  injury  of  third  persons,  extend  the 
time  beyond  that  of  the  principal  contract,  or  make  a  continu- 
ing one  by  the  purchasing  of  additional  articles.^  Some  stat- 
utes make  a  distinction  as  to  the  time  in  which  an  original 
contractor  and  subcontractor  may  file  their  liens. ^  Under  such 
statutes  the  law  must  be  complied  with  and  the  ordinary  rules, 


to  the  first  item.  National  Life 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Ayres,  111  Iowa  200, 
82  N.  W.   607. 

1  Costello  V.  Dale,  1  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  489,  3  Th.  &  C.  (N.  Y.) 
493.  Spruhen  v.  Stout,  52 
Wis.  517,  9  N.  W.  277.  In 
Alabama,  each  order  is  con- 
sidered a  separate  contract. 
Lane,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Jones,  79  Ala. 
156.  Labor  by  the  day,  dates 
from  each  day.  Goodale  v.  Walsh, 
2  Th.  &  C.  (N.  Y.)  311;  Seattle, 
&c.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ah  Kow,  2  Wash. 
Terr.  36,  3  Pac.  188.  Appeal  of 
Hofer,  116  Pa.  St.  360,  9  Atl.  441; 
Singerly  v.  Doerr,  62  Pa.  St.  9; 
Brown  v.  Kolb,  8  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
413.  Must  be  filed  in  three 
months  under  the  law  of  District 
of  Columbia.  Caldwell  v.  Wind- 
er, 2  Hayes  &  H.  (D.  C.)  24,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  18,245.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.   tit.   Mechanics'   Liens,    §  132. 

2  Hobkirk  v.   Portland  Baseball 


Club,  44  Ore.  605,  76  Pac.  776; 
Miller  v.  Heath,  22  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
313. 

3  Inman  v.  Henderson,  29  Ore. 
116,  45  Pac  300.  A  contract  for 
an  excavation  on  the  premises  of 
defendant  provided  that  any  ad- 
ditional work  should  become  a 
part  of  it.  The  work  was  com- 
pleted and  paid  for,  when  the 
contractor,  more  than  six 
months  thereafter,  filed  a  lien  for 
extra  work  already  completed 
when  the  contract  was  settled. 
Held,  that  it  was  filed  too  late. 
Cody  V.  White,  34  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
638,  70  N.  Y.  Supp.  589. 

4  Califoruia. — Pacific  Mut.  Life 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Fisher,  106  Cal.  224, 
39  Pac.  758;  La  Grill  v.  Mallard, 
90  Cal.  373,  27  Pac.  294;  Sparks 
V.  Butte  County  Gravel  Min.  Co., 
55   Cal.   389. 

Colorado. — Hart,  &c.,  Corp.  v. 
Mullen,   4   Colo.   512. 


257 


STATEMENT EXTRAS FILING. 


99 


determining  who  is  a  contractor,^  or  a  subcontractor/'  or  ma- 
terial man,  will  control."  It  is  not  an  unusual  thing  for  the 
statutes  to  require  a  different  length  of  time,  or  impose  differ- 
ent conditions  as  to  time  for  a  subcontractor  under  a  contract 
with  the  contractor,  than  is  applied  to  the  contractor  himself. 
As  to  what  will  be  included  in  the  subcontractor's  contract,  as 
a  continuing  one,  or  as  to  how  it  may  be  kept  alive  by  suc- 
cessive deliveries,  the  same  rules  will  generally  be  applied  as 
to  the  principal  contractor.^  It  is  sometimes  attempted  to 
amend  claims  that  have  not  been  properly  filed,  but  this  will 
not  be  permitted  after  the  time  limit  has  expired,  where  the 


Delaware. — Curlett  v.  Aaron,  6 
Houst.  (Del.)  477;  France  v. 
Woolston,  4  Houst.   (Del.)  557. 

Idaho. — Colorado  Iron  Works 
V.  Riekenberg,  4  Idaho  262,  38 
Pac.  651. 

Texas. — Matthews  v.  Wagen- 
haeuser  Brewing  Ass'n,  83  Tex. 
604,  19   S.  W.   150. 

United  States.  —  Salt  Lake 
Hardware  Co.  v.  Chainman  Min. 
&c.  Co.,  128  Fed.  509. 

5  See  §  48. 

6  See   §§  53-55. 

7  See  §§  53-55. 

Indiana. — Stephenson  v.  Bal- 
lard, 82  Ind.  87;  Thomas  v.  Kib- 
linger,  77  Ind.  85;  Hamilton  v. 
Naylor,  72  Ind.  171. 

Iowa. — Missouri  River  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Finance  Co.,  93  Iowa  640, 
61  N.  W.  913. 

Kansas. — Higley  v.  Ringle,  57 
Kan.  222,  45  Pac.  619;  Shella- 
barger  v.  Bishop,   14   Kan.   432. 

Maryland.— Heath  v.  Tyler,  44 
Md.  312. 

Massachusetts.  —  Kennebec 
Framing  Co.  v.  Pickering,  142 
Mass.  80,  7  N.  E.  30;  Gale  v. 
Blaikie,  129  Mass.  206. 

17 


Michigan. — Comstock  v.  Mc- 
Evoy,  52  Mich.  324,  17  N.  W.  931; 
Schulenburg  v.  Gibson,  15  Mo. 
281. 

Texas. — Burke  v.  Brown,  10 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  298,  30  S.  W.  936; 
Whiteselle  v.  Texas  Loan  Agency 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  27  S.  W.  309. 

8  See  §98. 

District  of  Columbia. — Martin 
V.  Campbell,  6  Mackey  (D.  C.) 
296. 

Kansas. — Groesbeck  v.  Barger, 
1  Kan.  App.  61,  41  Pac.  204; 
Crawford  v.  Blackman,  30  Kan. 
527,  1  Pac.  136;  Clough  v.  Mc- 
Donald, 18  Kan.  114;  Weyer- 
haeuser V.  Fraim,  54  Kan.  645,  39 
Pac  188;  Cunningham  v.  Barr,  45 
Kan.   158,   25   Pac.  583. 

\ehraska. — Drexel  v.  Richards, 
48  Neb.  322,  67  N.  W.  169;  Wells 
V.  David  City  Imp.  Ass'n,  43  Neb. 
366,  61  N.  W.  623;  McPhee  v. 
Kay,  30  Neb.  62,  46  N.  W-  223. 

]Vew  York.  —  McMahon  v. 
Hodge,  2  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  234,  21  N. 
Y.  Supp.  971. 

Oregon. — Ainslie  v.  Kohn,  16 
Ore.  363,  19  Pac.  97. 

South    Dakota.  —  Albright    v. 


100] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


258 


amendment  is  in  a  material  part  of  the  claim.^  If  the  statute 
makes  some  provision  in  reference  to  such  amendment,  the 
statute  will  control. ^^  The  substitution  of  new  parties  as  own- 
ers/^ or  the  name  of  the  owner/^  or  the  name  of  the  contract- 
or/3  or  failure  to  specify  items,  are  material  matters,  and  can- 
not be  remedied  by  amendment.!^  If  neither  the  owner,^^  nor 
third  persons  are  affected,  the  amendment  will  be  allowed. ^^ 

§  100.  Claim  or  statement — form  and  contents. — The  stat- 
utes rarely  if  ever  provide  a  form  for  the  statement  or  claim 
used  as  a  basis  of  mechanics'  liens,  and  when  the  labor  has  once 
been  performed  or  the  materials  furnished,  the  equities  are  then 
strong  in  favor  of  the  maintenance  of  the  lien,  and  the  courts 


Smith,  3  S.  Dak.  631,  54  N.  W.  816. 
Irrespective  of  previous  accept- 
ance or  occupancy  by  the  owner. 
Willamette  Steam  Mills  Co.  v. 
Kremer,  94  Cal.  205,  29  Pac.  633. 
Lien  claimants,  other  than  orig- 
inal contractors,  must  file  their 
lien  notices  within  30  days  from 
the  completion  of  the  work  or 
cessation  of  labor  thereon.  Seat- 
tle, &c,  R.  Co.  V.  Ah.  Kow,  2  Wash. 
Terr.  36,  3  Pac.  188. 

9  McGillivray  v.  District  Tp.  of 
Barton,  96  Iowa  629,  65  N.  W. 
974;  Drake  v.  Green,  48  Kan.  534, 
29  Pac.  584.  Where  once  dead,  it 
cannot  be  revived.  Farnham  v. 
Davis,  79  Me.  282,  9  Atl.  725; 
Gault  V.  Wittman,  34  Md.  35; 
Dearie  v.  Martin,  78  Pa.  St.  55; 
Russell  V.  Bell,  44  Pa.  St.  47. 

10  Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Des 
Moines  Driving  Park,  97  Iowa  25, 
65  N.  W.  1017;  Knox  v.  Hilty,  118 
Pa.  St.  430,  11  Atl.  792;  Schaeffer 
v.  Rohrbach,  1  Wilcox   (Pa.)   250. 

iiBeetem  v.  Treibler,  16  Pa. 
Co.    Ct.    695,    4     Pa.      Dist.     738; 


O'Neill  V.  Hurst,  11   Phila.    (Pa.) 
171,   33   Leg.   Int.    (Pa.)    13. 

12  Nason  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Jefferson 
Medical  College  Hospital  Trust- 
ees, 12  Phila.   (Pa.)   483. 

13  Horton  v.  Watson,  8  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  (Pa.)  143;  Murta  v.  Stephen- 
son, 2  Pa.  Dist.   (Pa.)   480. 

i^McFarland  v.  Schultz,  168 
Pa.   St.   634,  32  Atl.   94. 

15  Dennis  v.  Williamson,  2  Pa. 
Dist.  181. 

16  Huse  V.  Washburn,  59  Wis. 
414,  18  N.  W.  341.  The  statute 
requires  the  petition  to  enforce 
a  mechanic's  lien  to  be  filed  with- 
in 90  days.  A  petition  was  duly 
filed,  naming  A.  and  B.  as  sub- 
contractors. After  90  days,  the 
petition  was  amended  by  substi- 
tuting C.  as  contractor.  Held 
permissible.  Newman  v.  Jeffer- 
son City,  &c.,  Co.,  19  Mo.  App. 
100.  The  addition  of  the  name 
of  an  agent  as  defendant  and 
his  description  in  the  claim  as 
such,  is  mere  surplusage,  and 
may  be  amended  under  the  acts 


259 


STATEMENT — FORM   AND   CONTENTS. 


[§100 


will  not  hold  a  lien  invalid  because  the  lien  statement  does  not 
verbatim  follow  the  statute^  or  from  the  fact  that  it  is  awkward- 
ly and  inartistically  drawn,^  nor  will  it  be  defeated  by  technical- 
ities in  relation  to  the  manner  or  form  in  which  the  lien  state- 
ment is  made,^  the  purpose  of  the  statement  being  to  give 
notice  of  the  lienor's  claim. ^  A  substantial  following  of  the 
statute  in  relation  to  required  statements  contained  in  the  claim 
is  all  that  the  courts  demand,^  and  in  this  respect  a  liberal  con- 
struction is  given  to  the  statute.®  But  the  claim  must  show 
on  its  face  all  the  facts  necessary  to  create  and  fix  the  lien/ 


of  April  9,  1862,  and  June  11, 
1879.  Harner  v.  Thomas,  10  Pa. 
Dist.   487. 

1  Taylor  v.  Wittkamp,  13  Phila. 
(Pa.)  31.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  133. 

2  Durling  v.  Gould,  83  Me.  134, 
21  Atl.  833;  Buckley  v.  Taylor, 
51  Ark.  302,  11  S.  W.  281;  Kelly 
V.  Brown,  20  Pa.  St.  446. 

3  Durling  v.  Gould,  83  Maine 
134,  21  Atl.  833;  Ryan  v.  Klock, 
36  Hun  (N.  Y.)  104.  Under  stat- 
ute of  B.  C.  1888,  Cap.  74,  the  fol- 
lowing were  held  to  be  fatal  de- 
fects: 1.  Omission  to  state  resi- 
dence of  the  owner.  2.  Omis- 
sion to  sufficiently  state  resi- 
dence of  contractors.  3.  Omis- 
sion to  state  in  detail  the  partic- 
ulars and  item  of  the  work  done 
and  materials  furnished.  4. 
Omission  to  state  the  claim  due, 
and  when  it  became  due.  State- 
ment that  it  was  "owing"  held 
sufficient.  Smith  v.  Mcintosh,  3 
Brit.   Col.  L.   R.   26. 

■*  Grace  v.  Oakland  Bldg.  Ass'n, 
166  111.  637,  46  N.  E.  1102;  Ba- 
denoch  v.  Hoffman,  50  111.  App. 
512;     O'Brien    v.    Krockinski,    50 


111.  App.  456;  Lax  v.  Peterson,  42 
Minn.   214. 

5  California. — Russ  Lumber,  &c, 
Co.  V.  Garrettson,  87  Cal.  589,  25 
Pac.  747. 

Illinois.— Orr,  &c..  Hardware 
Co.  V.  Needham  Co.,  51  111.  App. 
57. 

North  Dakota.  —  Red  River 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Friel,  7  N.  D.  46, 
73  N.  W.  203. 

Oklahoma. — B  lanshard  v. 
Schwartz,  7  Okla.  23,  54  Pac.  303. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Russell  v. 
Bell,  44  Pa.  St.  47;  Brown  v. 
Myers,  145  Pa.  St.  17;  Driesbach 
V.  Keller,  2  Pa.  St.  77. 

Yermont. — Baldwin  v.  Spear 
Bros.,  79  Vt.  43,  64  Atl.  235. 

c  Durling  v.  Gould,  83  Me.  134, 
21  Atl.  833.  With  the  limitation 
that  this  rule  cannot  be  applied 
in  so  far  as  to  entirely  dispense 
with  what  the  statute  says  the 
notice  shall  contain.  Waters  v. 
Goldberg,  124  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
511,    108    N.    Y.    Supp.    992. 

"  Kansas. — Bethell  v.  Chicago 
Lumber  Co.,  39  Kan.  230,  17  Pac. 
813. 

Louisiana. — Wheelwright  v.   St. 


§100] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


260 


and  must  do  so  without  reference  to  other  papers,  which  are 
neither  attached  nor  incorporated.^  But  it  has  been  held  that  the 
claim  is  not  defective  if  more  is  stated  than  is  required;^^  or  if 
it  fails  to  state  whether  the  contract  was  in  writing  or  parol,^'' 
or  a  mistake  in  amount  where  there  is  no  fraud  perpetrated.^ 
As  a  general  rule  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  claim  or  state- 
ment should  assert  that  a  lien  is  claimed,^"  nor  that  the  claim- 
ant is  a  contractor,  subcontractor  or  material  man,  unless  it 
would  be  necessary  to  make  such  statement  to  establish  the 
right  to  a  lien.^^  Neither  is  it  necessary  that  reference  be  made 
to  the  statute,  under  which  the  lien  is  claimed. ^^  Under  stat- 
utes which  allow  several  claims  to  be  stated  in  one  statement, ^^ 
or  where  the  statute  allows  the  claim  to  be  on  contiguous  lots, 
these  statutory  facts  need  not  be  stated. ^^  Less  strictness  is 
required  between  owner  and  contractor,^^  than  where  the 
rights  of  third  parties   may   intervene. ^'^       If  it   fails  to  state 


Louis,  etc..  Canal,  &c.,  Co.,  47 
La.  Ann.  533,  17  So.  133. 

Pennsjivauia. — Knelly  v.  Hor- 
wath,  208  Pa.  St.  487,  57  Atl. 
957;  Este  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
13  Dist.  (Pa.)  451;  Smaltz  v. 
Knott,  3  Grant  Cas.  (Pa.)  227. 

IVasliiiigton. — Warren  v.  Quade, 
3  Wash.  St.  750,  29  Pac.  827. 

8  Foster  v.  Wulfing,  20  Mo.  App. 
85. 

S'l  John  Paul  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Hormel,  61  Minn.  303,  63  N.  W. 
718. 

8b  Baldwin  v.  Spear  Bros.,  79 
Vt.   43,  64  Atl.  235. 

0  Turner  v.  St.  John,  8  N.  Dak. 
245,  78   N.   W.   340. 

10  Smith  V.  Headley,  33  Minn. 
384,    23    N.    W.    550. 

iiLutz  V.  Ey,  3  E.  D.  Smith 
(N.  Y.)  621,  3  Abb.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)    475. 


12  White  V.  Livingston,  69  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  361,  75  N.  Y.  Supp. 
466;  Hawkins  v.  Boyden,  25  R.  I. 
181,   55  Atl.  324. 

13  Kinney  v.  Duluth  Ore  Co., 
58  Minn.  455,  60  N.  W.  23,  49  Am. 
St.  538;  Benjamin  v.  Wilson,  34 
Minn.  517,  26  N.  W.  725. 

14  Twitchell  v.  Devens,  45  Mo. 
App.  283. 

15  ^Murray  v.  Harris,  57  111. 
App.  351.  Account  acknowledged. 
Leftwich  Lumber  Co.  v.  Florence 
Mutual  Building,  &c.,  Ass'n,  104 
Ala.  584,  18  So.  48;  Murray  v. 
Rapley.  30  Ark.  568.  Filing  note 
where  statute  allows.  Jarrett  v. 
Hoover,  41  Neb.  231,  59  N.  W. 
353. 

16  Lien  statements,  when  filed, 
must  be  explicit  and  comprehen- 
sive to  protect  strangers  to  the 
contract,  who  may  have  other 
contracts   relating  to     the     same 


261 


CLAIM DESIGNATION   OF   PARTIES. 


[§100 


essential  facts,  as  the  amount  clue  or  to  whom  furnished,  it  will 
be  fatally  defective, ^^  and  cannot  be  aided  by  statements  made 
in  petition  on  foreclosure.^^  The  facts  stated  in  the  claim  must 
not  be  at  variance  with  proof  adduced  on  trial. ^'-^ 

§  101.  Claim  or  statement — designation  of  parties  and  de- 
scription of  building. — The  parties  should  be  designated  in  the 
statement  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  certainty.^  And  in  de- 
termining whether  the  parties  have  been  properly  designated, 
all  the  statements  made  in  the  claim  are  to  be  considered.^ 
Only  the  names  of  interested  parties  need  to  be  designated  in 
the  claim,  or  such  names  as  may  be  necessary  to  show  the 


property,  or  liens  thereon,  from 
fraud,  and  may  be  required  by 
the  party  at  whose  request  the 
work  is  performed.  Carson  v. 
White,  6  Gill  (Md.)  17. 

17  Fogarty  v.  Wisk,  8  Daly  (N. 
Y.)  166;  Madera  Flume  &  Trad- 
ing Co.  V.  Kendall,  120  Cal.  182, 
52  Pac.  304;  Getty  v.  Ames,  30 
Ore.  573,  48  Pac.  355. 

18  Madera  Flume  &  Trading  Co. 
V.  Kendall,  120  Cal.  182,  52  Pac. 
304. 

19  Wilson  V.  Nugent,  125  Cal. 
280,  57  Pac.  1008.     See  §§  254,  255. 

1  Pierce  v.  Osborn,  40  Kan. 
168,  19  Pac.  656;  Lax  v.  Peterson, 
42  Minn.  214,  44  N.  W.  3;  Rich- 
ards V.  Lewisohn,  19  Mont.  128, 
47  Pac.  645.  Though  one  states 
in  his  claim  of  lien  that  a  certain 
person  is  owner  and  reputed 
owner  of  the  premises,  his  lien 
is  not  impaired  by  proof  that 
such  person  was  the  reputed 
owner  only.  Kelly  v.  Lember- 
ger  (Cal.),  46  Pac.  8.  The  certifi- 
cate read,  "We,  B.,  W.,  and  E., 
copartners  under  the  name  of  B. 
E.  &  Co.,"  but  was  signed  by  the 
true  name  of  the  firm,  B.  W.  & 


Co.:  the  lien  was  not  invalidated. 
Shattuck  v.  Beardsley,  46  Conn. 
386.  In  a  notice  of  a  claim  of 
lien  for  work  and  materials  fur- 
nished a  corporation,  whose 
name  is  the  "Installment  Build- 
ing &  Loan  Company,"  under  a 
contract  made  with  the  corpora- 
tion itself,  it  is  an  immaterial  va- 
riance that  the  defendant  is 
styled  the  "Installment  Building 
&  Loan  Association."  Installment 
Building  &  Loan  Co.  v.  Went- 
worth,  1  Wash.  St-  467,  25  Pac. 
298.  The  plaintiff,  whose  name 
was  Witte,  filed  a  petition  for  a 
mechanic's  lien  under  the  name 
of  Witter,  and  obtained  a  judg- 
ment therefor  in  his  proper 
name.  Held,  that  the  petition 
might  be  amended  and  that  the 
error  did  not  avoid  the  judgment. 
Witte  V.  Meyer,  11  Wis.  309.  See 
Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Lien,  §  135. 

2  Coiiiiecticiit. — Hooker  v.  Mc- 
Glone,  42  Conn.  95. 

Michigan. — McMonegal  v.  Wil- 
son, 103  Mich.   264,  61  N.  W.  495. 

New    York. — Ogden   v.    Alexan- 


§101 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


262 


proper  relation  of  parties  interested.^  In  case  of  partnership,  the 
use  of  the  firm  name  is  sufficient  and  the  names  of  the  individual 
members  need  not  be  given.'*  If  the  individual  names  are  given 
and  they  are  afterwards  referred  to  as  a  firm,  the  variance  will 
not  be  material.^  But  it  will  be  well  to  remember  that  a  cor- 
poration is  not  the  same  as  a  partnership  and  that  a  claim 
against  the  individual  corporation  owners  will  not  hold  the  cor- 
poration,^ nor  vice  versa."  If  the  claim  is  a  joint  one,  it  has 
been  held  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  state  whether  the  claim- 
ants are  partners  or  merely  joint  claimants.^  But  a  statute 
requiring  a  statement  to  contain  the  name  and  residence  of  the 
claimants,  was  held  not  complied  with  where  only  the  firm 
name  and  place  of  business  was  given.^  If  no  one  is  actually 
misled,  however,  a  wrong  designation  will  not  defeat  the  lien 


der,  140  N.  Y.  356,  35  N.  E.  639; 
Hubbell  V.  Schreyer,  56  N.  Y.  604, 
15  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  300. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Sullivan  v. 
Johns,  5  Whart.  (Pa.)  366. 

3  Hubbell  V.  Schreyer,  56  N.  Y. 
604,  15  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  300;  Mor- 
gan V.  Taylor,  15  Daly  (N.  Y.) 
304,  5  N.  Y.  Supp.  920.  In  a  suit 
to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien 
against  the  property  of  the 
"Home  Brewing  Company  of 
Grafton"  for  materials  furnished 
the  principal  contractor  for  the 
construction  of  a  building,  it  was 
held  that  a  notice  of  a  lien  re- 
corded in  the  name  of  "Home 
Brewing  Company"  was  sufficient. 
Grafton  Grocery  Co.  v.  Home 
Brewing  Co.,  60  W.  Va.  281,  54 
S.  E.  349. 

4  Black's  Appeal,  2  Watts  &  S. 
(Pa.)  179.  "Was  not  bad,  because 
the  claimants  neither  alleged 
therein  a  copartnership,  nor  filed 
the  lien  in  the  name  of  their  co- 


partnership, where  all  the  mem- 
bers filed  it  and  stated  that  they 
had  a  lien.  Waters  v.  Goldberg, 
124  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  511,  108  N. 
Y.   Supp.   992. 

5  Miller  v.  Faulk,  47  Mo.  262. 
The    list   of   items    attached   was 

-headed  "  K  to  F.  Bros.  Dr."  The 
affidavit  purported  to  have  been 
made  by  a  member  of  the  firm 
"for  and  in  behalf  of  said  firm 
of  F.  Bros."  Held,  that  the  affi- 
davit was  in  substantial  com- 
pliance with  the  statute.  Klein- 
ert  v.  Knoop,  147  Mich.  387,  110 
N.   W.  941,   13   Det.   Leg.   N.   1039. 

6  Chicago  Bldg  &  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Talbotton  Creamery  &  Mfg.  Co., 
106  Ga.  84,  31  S.  E.  809. 

"  Sawyer  Goodman  Co.  v.  Nea- 
gle,  110  111.  App.  178. 

8  Knabb's  Appeal,  10  Pa.  St. 
186,  51  Am.  Dec.  472. 

9  Kane  v.  Hutkoff,  81  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  105,  81  N.  Y.  Supp. 
85. 


263  CLAIM JOINT PARTNERSHIP.  [§  101 

right.^*'  It  has  been  held  that  the  omission  of  the  claimant's 
christian  name  was  not  fatal. ^^  Agency  in  such  cases  must  be 
shown  in  order  that  work  through  an  agency  may  be  claimed 
and  the  allegation  in  the  claim  or  statement  that  the  work  was 
done  in  pursuance  to  a  contract  with  the  agent  of  the  owners, 
has  been  held  to  show  such  agency.^-  But  a  statement  that 
the  work  is  done  at  request  of  A.  as  the  agent  of  B.  as  agent 
for  eight  others,  does  not  show  authority  to  bind  the  eight 
others. ^^  So,  an  allegation  that  a  contract  is  with  S,  who 
holds  a  contract  for  B.,  has  been  held  an  insufficient  designation 
of  parties  intended.^'*  But  the  mere  fact  that  the  agent  desig- 
nated as  such  alleges  that  there  is  owing  him  a  certain  amount 
which  he  claims,  will  not  prevent  the  establishment  of  the 
claim  of  the  true  owner. ^^  The  fact  that  names  of  persons 
are  inserted,  who  are  not  parties,  will  not  affect  the  lien,  if 
done  without  fraudulent  intent.^^  Whether  the  lien  statement 
must  in  addition  to  a  description  of  the  land  upon  which  the 
building  is  located,  contain  a  description  of  the  building  itself 
will  depend  upon  the  statutory  provisions  in  relation  thereto.'-''' 
Where  the  statute  requires  the  building  to  be  described,  it 
must  be  described  with  the  same  certainty  as  is  required  in 

10  Bitter  v.  Mouat  Lumber  &  i6  McClain  v.  Hutton,  131  Cal. 
Inv.  Co.,  10  Col.  App.  307,  51  Pac.  132,  63  Pac.  182.  Where  the  stat- 
519.  ute    makes    the   owner    liable    for 

11  In  re  Hill's  Estate,  3  Pa.  L.  improvements  made  by  a  lessee, 
J.  323,  2  Clark  (Pa.)  96.  the  name  of  the  lessee  need  not 

12  Ward  V.  Conwell,  8  Del.  Co.  be  given.  Steeves  v.  Sinclair, 
Ct.    (Pa.)    17.  56    App.    Div.    (N.   Y.)    448,   67   N. 

13  Northwest  Bridge  Co.  v.  Ta-  Y.  Supp.  776;  Gass  v.  Souther,  61 
coma  Shipbuilding  Co.,  36  Wash.  N.  Y.  Supp.  305. 

333,   78   Pac.   996.  i7  Code    Civ.    Proc.    2130,    pro- 

14  McGlauflin  v.  Beeden,  41  vides  for  a  mechanic's  lien  on  a 
Minn.  408,  43  N.  W.  86.  Making  building  or  improvement  on  con- 
the  claim  agent  the  husband,  will  struction  of  which  the  labor  or 
not  bind  the  wife.  Finley's  Ap-  materials  claimed  for  were  used, 
peal,  67  Pa.  St.  453.  Section   2133  extends  the   lien   to 

15  Lamb  v.  Hanneman,  40  Iowa  the  land  on  which  the  structures 
41.  were    erected,    and    section    2131 


§102" 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


264 


describing  the  land  upon  which  it  is  located. ^^  In  some  cases 
this  certainty  is  termed  reasonable  certainty.^^  A  description 
of  a  house  will  not  include  a  fence  made  to  enclose  it.^o  nor 
a  stable.-^  Under  some  statutes  a  statement  for  the  work  or 
for  repairs  is  fatally  defective  when  it  was  in  fact  for  a  new 
structure,-"^  or  an  addition. ^-^  And  a  description  as  "a  building" 
and  "appurtenance"  has  been  held  bad  for  uncertainty. ^'^ 

§  102.     Claim  or  statement — notice  of  intention  to  claim. — 

Unless  the  statute  so  directs,  the  lien  statement  need  not  con- 
tain an  averment  that  notice  of  the  intention  to  claim  a  lien  has 
been  given,  but  if  the  statute  makes  the  giving  of  notice  of  the 
intention  to  file  a  claim  a  condition  precedent  to  the  right  to 
file  the  claim,  then  the  statement  must  contain  an  averment 
that  such  notice  has  been  given. ^     Facts  not  required  by  the 


provides  that  a  person  desiring 
to  perfect  a  mechanic's  lien  must 
file  a  notice  containing  a  cor- 
rect description  of  the  property 
to  be  charged.  Held,  that  the 
property  to  be  identified  under 
section  2131  is  the  building  or 
improvement  on  which  the  lien  is 
given,  and  hence  a  specific  de- 
scription of  the  land  is  not  re- 
quired. Western  Iron  Works  v. 
Montana  Pulp  &  Paper  Co.,  30 
Mont.  550,  77  Pac.  413. 

18  See  §§  77  and  103.  See  Dec. 
&  Am.  Dig.  tit.  JMechanics'  Liens, 
§136. 

19  Turner  v.  Robbins,  78  Ala. 
592;  "V\Tiitenack  v.  Noe,  3  StocRt. 
(N.  J.  Eq.)   321. 

20  Riverside  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Hampton,  7  Houst.  (Del.)  486,  32 
Atl.  960. 

2iBevan  v.  Thackara,  143  Pa. 
St.  182,  22  Atl.  873,  28  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)    473. 


22  Cox  V.  Flanagan  (N.  Y.),  2 
Atl.  33;  Harman  v.  Cummings, 
43  Pa.  St.  322.  A  claim  is  insuffi- 
cient which  fails  to  describe  the 
building,  its  character,  size  and 
materials  of  construction,  and 
which  fails  to  state  the  year 
when  the  items  were  furnished, 
though  the  month  and  day  of 
month  are  given.  Nolan  v.  War- 
ren,  11    (Pa.)    Dist.   561. 

23  Whitenack  v.  Noe,  3  Stockt. 
(N.  J.  Eq.)  321;  Linck  v.  Wolf 
(Pa.).  4  Atl.  23. 

24  Barclay's  Appeal,  13  Pa.  St. 
495.  It  may  be  explained  by  a 
bill  attached  to  a  claim.  Killings- 
worth  V.  Allen,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  220, 
8  Leg.  Int.   (Pa.)  126. 

1  Adams  v.  Shaffer.  132  Ind. 
331,  31  N.  E.  1108;  Adams  v. 
Buhler,  131  Ind.  66,  30  N.  E. 
883;  Riter  v.  Houston  Oil  Re- 
fining, &c.,  Co.,  19  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
516,  48  S.  W.  758;  Niswander  v. 
Black,  50  W.  Va.  188,  40  S.  E.  431. 


265 


NOTICE  OF  INTENTION  TO  CLAIM. 


:§  102 


statute  need  not  be  set  out.^  Under  the  Pennsylvania  system 
which  requires  notice  of  the  intention  to  file  a  lien,  the  aver- 
ment must  be  made  in  the  statement  or  no  lien  will  be  ac- 
quired.^ And  generally  whatever  notice  is  required  by  statute 
must  be  given.'*  Where  the  statute  does  not  require  notice 
of  the  intention  to  claim  a  lien  to  be  given  before  the  lien  state- 
ment is  filed,  it  is  very  often  required  that  the  notice  must 
afterwards  be  given. ^  Where  such  notice  is  required,  the 
notice  itself  is  the  best  evidence  of  its  having  been  given,  and 
under  such  statutes  it  is  held  that  any  written  copy  is  a  notice 
in  writing.*^  Under  the  New  York  statute  the  failure  to  give 
such  notice  does  not  defeat  the  lien  unless  the  owner  has  made 
payments  without  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  the  lien 
claimed.^     It  is  not  necessary  that  the  statement  itself  contain 


2  Harbolsheimer  v.  Totten,  7 
Pa.  Co.  Ct.  (Pa.)  665;  Geigle  v. 
Lavis,  1  Wilcox  (Pa.),  208;  Jef- 
fersonville  Water  Supply  Co.  v. 
Ritter,  146  Ind.  521,  45  N.  E.  697. 

3  Fuller  V.  Grim,  30  Pittsb.  Leg. 
J.  (N.  S.)  (Pa.)  83;  Irwin  v.  Nit- 
tany  Rod  &  Gun  Club,  23  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  375;  Purvis  v.  Ross,  12  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  193;  West  Chester  v. 
Sahler,  8  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  656;  Dreibel- 
bis  V.  Seazholtz,  8  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
655;  Foster  v.  Montanye,  7  Kulp, 
(Pa.)  14;  German  Fairhill  Bldg. 
Ass'n  No.  2  v.  Heebner,  13  Montg. 
Co.  Law  Rep'r  (Pa.)  56,  3  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  643;  Uber  v.  McAfee,  2 
Pa.  Dist.  372;  Langenheim  v.  An- 
schultz-Bradberry  Co.,  2  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  285,  38  W.  N.  C.  505. 
Sub-contractors  need  not.  Wei'- 
ner  Saw  Mill  Co.  v.  Chemical  Co., 
33  Pittsb.  L.  J.  193,  11  Pa.  Dist. 
722. 

4  Missouri. — McDonnell  v.  Nich- 
olson, 67  Mo.  App.  408. 


New  York. — White  v.  Livings- 
ton, 174  N.  Y.  538,  66  N.  E.  1118; 
New  Jersey  Steel  &  Iron  Co.  v. 
Robinson,  85  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
412,  83  N.  Y.  Supp.  450;  McKin- 
ney  v.  White,  15  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)    423,  44  N.  Y.  Supp.  561. 

Utah. — Culmer  v.  Caine,  22 
Utah  216,  61  Pac.  1008.  But  if  no 
prejudice  to  anyone  is  shown,  the 
omission  to  give  it  would  not  be 
fatal.  Sandberg  v.  Victor  Gold 
&  Silver  Min.  Co.,  24  Utah  1,  66 
Pac.  360.  A  demand  at  the  con- 
clusion of  a  notice,  "that  claim- 
ant have  the  benefit  of  the  law 
allowing  the  lien"  is  equivalent 
to  a  statement  that  he  claims  a 
lien.  Bringham  v.  Knox.  127 
Cal.  40,  59  Pac.   198. 

5  See  §§  53-56. 

('  Armstrong  v.  Chisholm,  100 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  440,  91  N.  Y. 
Supp.  693;  Lentz  v.  Eimermann, 
119  Wis.  492,  97  N.  W.  181. 

8  La  Paska  v.  Weil,  20  Misc. 
(N.    Y.)    10,    44    N.    Y.    Supp.    778. 


§103] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


266 


an  averment  that  the  labor  was  performed  or  material  furnished 
within  the  time  limit  as  such  a  matter  is  a  question  of  fact  to 
be  proved  on  trial.^  However  it  is  necessary  that  the  aver- 
ments in  the  lien  statement  show  that  the  statement  has  been 
filed  within  the  statutory  time/'^  even  though  the  fact  be  other- 
wise.^^  The  mere  fact  that  the  lien  has  no  date  will  not  affect 
it.^-  If  the  lien  statement  is  defective  in  verification  or  even 
in  other  matters,  it  may  generally  be  amended  before  the 
time  limit  has  expired  w^ithout  affecting  the  validity  of  the 
lien.^^ 

§  103.     Claim  or  Statement — Description  of  Property.    The 

statutes  usually  require  the  lien  statement  to  contain  a 
description  of  the  property  w^hich  it  is  sought  to  be  made  sub- 
ject to  the  lien.^  As  a  matter  of  course  w^here  the  statute  so 
requires,  a  failure  to  comply  will  be  fatal,  and  as  a  general  rule, 
it  may  be  said  that  even  though  the  statute  does  not  have 
such  a  requirement,  a  lien  statement  that  does  not  have  a 
description    of    the    property    will    not    be    of    much    value.^ 


9  Cook  V.  Rome  Brick  Co.,  98 
Ala.  409,  12  So.  918. 

10  Henry,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Halter,  58 
Neb.  68.5,  79  N.  W.  616;  Chappel 
V.  Smith,  40  Neb.  579,  59  N.  W. 
110. 

11  Olson  V.  Pennington,  37 
Minn.  298,  23  N.  W.  791. 

12  Rosenberg  v.  Union  Iron  & 
Foundry  Co.,  63  111.  App.  99. 

13  Kansas. — Buckland  v.  Goit, 
23   Kan.   327. 

Illinois. — Kruse  v.  Wilson,  79 
111.    233. 

Massachusetts.  —  Jackman  v. 
Gloucester,  143  Mass.  380,  9  N. 
E.  740. 

New  York. — Sage  v.  Stafford, 
59  N.  Y.  Supp.  545.  See  §  62,  as 
to  time  within  which  claim  must 
be  filed. 


1  Alabama. — Salter  v.  Goldberg, 
(Ala.),  43  So.  571. 

Missouri. — Darlington  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Harris,  107  Mo.  App.  148, 
80  S.  W.  688;  Mayes  v.  Murphy, 
93  Mo.  App.  37,  67  S.  W.  742. 

Nebraska. — Drexel  v.  Richards, 
48  Xebr.  732,  50  Nebr.  509,  70  N. 
W.  23. 

Peuusjivania. — Morrow  v.  Cor- 
coran, 9  Kulp.  (Pa.)  314.  Not 
so  strict  as  to  personal  property. 
Olson  V.  Pennington,  37  Minn. 
298,  33  N.  W.  791.  See  Dec.  & 
Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens 
§136. 

2  Merchants',  &c.,  Bank  v.  Hol- 
lis,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App.  479,  84  S. 
W.  269. 


267 


CLAIM — DESCRIPTION    OF   PROPERTY. 


[§103 


Where  no  description  is  given,  the  defect  is  of  such  character 
that  a  court  cannot  supply  the  omission.^  The  general  rule 
is  that  a  description  is  sufficient  which  enables  a  party  familiar 
with  the  locality  to  identify  the  property  with  reasonable 
certainty.^     Some  courts  hold  the  description  sufficient  if  it 


3  Drexel  v.  Richards,  48  Neb. 
732,  67  N.  W.  742;  Holmes  v. 
Nutchins,  38  Neb.  601,  57  N.  W. 
514. 

4  Alabama,  —  Alabama  State 
Fair,  &c.,  Ass'n  v.  Alabama  Gas 
Fixture,  &c.,  Co.,  131  Ala.  256,  31 
So.  26;  Hughes  v.  Torgerson,  96 
Ala.  346,  11  So.  209,  16  L.  R.  A. 
600. 

Illinois. — Wood  v.  Gumm,  67  111. 
App.  518. 

Indiana. — Lundley  v.  Cross,  31 
Ind.  106. 

Kansas. — Seaton  v.  Hixon,  35 
Kan.  663,  12  Pac.  22. 

Massachusetts.  —  Pollock  v. 
Morrison,  176  Mass.  83,  57  N.  E. 
326. 

Minnesota, — Evans  v.  Sanford, 
65  ]\Knn.  271,  68  N.  W.  21;  Ny- 
strom  V.  London,  &c.,  Mortg.  Co., 
47  Minn.  31,  49  N.  W.  394. 

Missouri — De  Witt  v.  Smith,  63 
Mo.  263;  Matlack  v.  Lare,  32  Mo. 
262;  Hammond  v.  Darlington, 
109  Mo.  App.  333,  84  S.  W.  446; 
Hydraulic  Press  Brick  Co.  v. 
Schlingmann,  88  Mo.  App.  17; 
Buchannan  v.  Cole,  57  Mo.  App. 
11;  Fairbanks  v.  Crescent  Ele- 
vator  Co.,    52   Mo.   App.    627. 

Montana. — Western  Iron  Works 
V.  Montana  Pulp  &  Paper  Co.,  30 
Mont.  550,  77  Pac.  413. 

Nebraska. — Drexel  v.  Richards, 
50  Neb.  511. 

North     Dakota.  —  Red     River 


Lumber  Co.  v.  Friel,  7  N.  Dak. 
46,  73  N.  W.  203;  Howe  v.  Smith, 
6  N.  Dak.  432,  71  N.  W.  552. 

PennsylTania. — Safe  Deposit  & 
Steel  Co.  v.  Columbia  Iron  & 
Steel  Co.,  176  Pa.  St.  536,  35  Atl. 
229 ;  Titusville  Iron  Works  v.  Key- 
stone Oil  Co.,  130  Pa.  St.  211,  18 
Atl.  739;  In  re  Messersmith's 
Estate,  1  Dauph.  Co.  (Pa.)  223; 
Cowdrick  v.  Morris,  9  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
(Pa.)   312. 

Texas. — Swope  v.  Stantzenber- 
ger,  59  Tex.  387. 

United  States. — Hooven,  &c.,  Co. 
V.  John  Peatherstone's  Sons,  111 
Fed.  81,  49  C.  C.  A.  229. 
Where  a  mechanic's  lien  de- 
scribes the  land  sought  to  be 
subjected,  names  each  building 
thereon,  and  refers  to,  and  makes 
a  part  of  the  lien,  a  map  of  the 
premises,  it  is  sufficient.  Linden 
Steel  Co.  V.  Rough  Run  Mfg.  Co., 
158  Pa.  St.  238,  27  Atl.  895;  Linden 
Steel  Co.  V.  Imperial  Refining  Co., 
138  Pa.  St.  10,  20  Atl.  867,  869; 
In  Tibbets  v.  Moore,  23  Cal.  208, 
the  description  was:  "A  quartz 
mill,  being  at  or  near  the  town 
of  Scottsville  in  Amador  County, 
known  as  'Moore's  New  Quartz 
Mill,' "  The  court  held,  that  if 
there  was  no  other  quartz  mill  at 
the  place  named,  the  description 
was  sufficient.  In  Hotaling  v. 
Cronise,  2  Cal.  60,  the  descrip- 
tion of  the   property   in   the  affi- 


103] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


268 


is  such  that  the  land  is  susceptible  of  ready  ascertainment,^ 
and  in  other  jurisdictions  it  is  enough  that  the  land  is  described 
with  the  certainty  that  is  ordinarily  used  in  conveyances,^  or 
that  the  court  could  decree  a  sale  and  the  purchaser  would  be 
able  to  find  the  land,"  or  that  the  sheriff  could  discover  it  and 
sell  it  on  execution.^'*  But  in  no  case  is  the  description  required 
to  be  more  definite  than  a  reasonable  interpretation  of  the 
statute   requires.^      And   it  is  held  that  extrinsic  evidence  is 


davit  for  a  lieu  was:  "A  wharf  sit- 
uated ou  Battery  street,  between 
Pacific  and  Jackson  streets,  in 
San  Francisco."  Tlie  court  con- 
tented itself  by  saying  that 
it  thought  the  description  of 
the  property  sufficiently  cer- 
tain. In  Rose  v.  Persse  & 
Brook  Paper  Works,  29  Conn. 
256,  the  description  in  the 
affidavit  filed  for  the  lien  was: 
"Two  tracts  of  land  situated  in 
the  town  of  W,  one  bounded  with 
two  paper  mills  theron;  and  the 
other  bounded  with  one  paper 
mill  thereon."  The  court  held 
that  the  affidavit  filed  for  a  lien 
was  void  as  not  containing  a  rea- 
sonably accurate  description  of 
the  premises.  In  Caldwell  v. 
Asbury,  29  Ind.  451,  the  descrip- 
tion in  the  affidavit  was  "House 
and  lot  on  the  southwest  corner 
of  Fourth  and  Oak  streets,  in 
Terre  Haute,  Indiana."  The  court 
said  that  this  description  was  ca- 
pable of  being  reduced  to  a  cer- 
tainty, and  applying  the  rule  '"that 
is  certain  which  may  be  made 
certain,"  held  the  description 
sufficient  to  sustain  the  lien.  In 
Brown  v.  LaCrosse  City  Gas, 
Light   &   Coke    Co.,    16    Wis.    578, 


the  description  was:  "The  sev- 
eral buildings  known  as  the  gas 
works  of  the  La  Crosse  City  Gas, 
Light  &  Coke  Company,  situated 
on  lots  number  8,  9,  etc.,  in  block 
14."  As  a  matter  of  fact  the 
buildings  were  situate  on  other 
lots  but  the  court  held  that  the 
description  was  sufficient  to  pass 
the  title  of  the  real  estate  upon 
which  the  works  were  situate, 
and,  therefore,  sufficient  to  sus- 
tain the  mechanic's  lien.  Union 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Simon,  150  Cal. 
751,  89  Pac.  1077,  judgment  modi- 
fied, 89  Pac.  1081. 

•J  Rockwell  V.  O'Brien-Green 
Co.,  62  111.  App.  293;  O'Brien  v. 
Krockinski,  50  111.  App.  456; 
Keating  v.  Voss,  61  Ind.  466; 
Doyle  V.  Wagner,  100  Minn.  380, 
111  X.  W.  275.  Familiar  with  lo- 
cality. Guion  V.  Ryckman,  77 
Neb.  833,  110  N.  W.  759. 

6  Bank  of  Charlestown  v.  Cur- 
tiss,  18  Conn.  342;  Knox  v. 
Starks,  4  :\Iinn.  7. 

T  Knox  v.  Starks,  4  Minn.  7; 
OXeil  v.  Taylor,  59  W.  Va.  370, 
53  S.  E.  471. 

s  Ely  V.  Wren,  90  Pa.  148. 

9  Heier  v.  Meisch,  33  Mo.  App. 
35;  Brown  v.  Wright,  25  Mo. 
App.   54. 


269 


CLAIM DESCRIPTION    OF    PROPERTY. 


[§103 


admissible  to  aid  in  identifying  the  premises  sought  to  be 
described  in  the  statement.^"  But  in  such  cases  the  extrinsic 
evidence  must  be  confined  to  exemplifying  or  illuminating  the 
facts  set  forth  in  the  statement  and  not  for  the  purpose  of 
supplying  new  material  matters.^ ^  The  fact  that  more  land  is 
included  than  should  rightfully  be  included,  does  not  invalidate 
the  lien. ^2  A  statement  containing  nothing  more  than  the 
state  and  county/^  and  the  mere  starting  point, i'^  or  the  name 
of  the  state,  county  and  city,^-"*  or  the  name  of  the  building 
only/'^  or  giving  unknown  courses,^"  or  an  entirely  wrong 
description/^  or  such  that  the  premises  cannot  be  identified/^ 
by  an  ordinarily  intelligent  and  careful  man,  is  insufficient.^^ 
There  is  great  reluctance  on  the  part  of  courts,  however,  to  set 
aside  liens,  on  the  ground  of  looseness  of  description,  as  it  is 
recognized  that  such  claims  may  be  filed  by  persons  who  are 


10  Drexel  v.  Richards,  50  Neb. 
509,  70  N.  W.  23;  Owens  v.  Hord, 
14  Tex.  Civ.  App.  1,  37  S.  W.  1093. 

iiMertens  v.  Cassini,  &c.,  Tile 
Co.,  53  W.  Va.  192,  44  S.  E.  245. 
Certainty  to  a  common  intent  is 
sufficient.  Holland  v.  Garland,  13 
Phila.  (Pa.)  544;  Ewing  v.  Bar- 
ras,  4  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  467. 

12  McClain  v.  Hutton,  131  Cal. 
132,  63  Pac.  182;  Sorg  v.  Pfalz- 
graf,  113  111.  App.  569;  Western 
Cornice  Manuf'g  Works  v.  Leav- 
enworth, 52  Neb.  418,  72  N.  W. 
582;  Mivelaz  v.  Johnson,  124  Ky. 
251,  30  Ky.  L.  389,  98  S.  W.  1020. 

13  Penrose  v.  Calkins,  77  Cal. 
396,   19    Pac.   641. 

1-1  Barrows  v.  Baughman,  9 
Mich.  213. 

15  Not  giving  lot  number. 
Drexel  v.  Richards,  48  Neb.  732, 
67  N.  W.  742. 

ifJ  A  description  of  property  in 
a  statement  of  a  lien  as  "thirty 


lengths  of  corncribbing  at  Wills 
Station,"  is  too  indefinite.  Roose 
V.  Billingsly,  &c..  Commission 
Co.,  74  Iowa  51,  36  N.  W.  885. 
A  claim  describing  the  property 
as  a  double  saw  mill  in  Clarion 
county,  Pennsylvania,  situate  on 
the  waters  of  the  Clarion  river, 
and  on  the  east  side  of  said  river 
is  deficient.  Washburn  v.  Rus- 
sell,  1    Pa.   499. 

1"  Young    V.    Howell,    5    Wash. 

239,  31  Pac.  629. 

18  Muto  V.  Smith,  175  Mass- 
175,  55  N.  E.  1041;  Whittier  v. 
Stetson,  &c.,  Mill  Co.,  6  Wash. 
190,  33   Pac.   393. 

i!>  i\It.  Tacoma  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cul- 
tum,  5  Wash.  294,  32  Pac.  95; 
Dusick    V.    Meiselbach,    118    Wis. 

240,  95  N.  W.  144;  Sprickerhoff  v. 
Gordon,  120  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
748,   105  N.  Y.  Supp.  586. 

-'!»  Laird-Norton  Co.  v.  Hopkins, 
6  S.  Dak.  217,  60  N.  W.  857. 


104] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


270 


not  skilled  in  legal  matters.^i  Where  the  work  is  done  on 
different  buildings  even  where  included  in  the  same  lien  state- 
ment, the  buildings  ought  to  be  separately  described.^^  But 
in  other  cases,  it  has  been  held  that  if  the  land  is  contiguous, 
and  separate  buildings  are  located  thereon,  they  may  be  de- 
scribed in  bulk.23 

§  104.     Claim  or  statement — Portion  of  land  to  be  described. 

— As  before  stated,  the  lien  will  not  be  invalidated  because  it 
contains  more  land  in  its  description  than  is  properly  subject 
to  a  lien.^  Especially  is  this  true  where  the  property  that  is 
properly  subject  to  the  lien  can  be  definitely  ascertained,^  and 


21  McClintock  v.  Rush,  63  Pa. 
203. 

~~  Friedlaender  v.  McCann,  91 
111.  App.  415;  Hooven,  &c.,  Co.  v. 
Featherstone,  99  Fed.  180;  Mer- 
tens  V.  Cassini,  «S;c.,  Tile  Co.,  53 
W.  Va.  192,  44  S.  E.  241.  And 
sometimes  this  is  held  to  be  a 
matter  of  pleading.  Bruce  v. 
Hoos,  48  Mo.  App.  161;  Twitchell 
V.  Devens,  45  Mo.  App.  283. 

23  Connecticut. — Rose  v.  Persse, 
&c.,   Paper  Works,  29  Conn.   256. 

Illinois. — Moore  v.  Parish,  163 
111.  93,  45  N.  E.  573;  Prendergast 
V.  McNally,  76  111.  App.  335- 

Indiana. — Coburn  v.  Stephens, 
137  Ind.  683,  36  N.  E.  132,  45  Am. 
St.  218. 

3Iassaclmsetts. — York  v.  Bar- 
stow,  175  Mass.  167,  55  N.  E. 
846. 

Oregon. — Watson  v.  Noonday 
Min.  Co.,  37  Ore.  444,  60  Pac.  994. 
Material  men  furnished  materials 
for  the  construction  of  three 
buildings  on  land  belonging  to 
the  same  owner,  and  it  was  im- 
possible for  them  to  know  what 
materials  were  intended  for  each 


building,  failure  to  distribute  the 
materials  furnished  among  the 
several  buildings  did  not  invali- 
date their  lien;  its  only  effect  in 
any  event  being  to  postpone  their 
claim  to  those  of  other  lien  cred- 
itors. Fulton  V.  Parlett,  104  Md. 
62,   64   Atl.   58. 

1  Colorado. — Cary  Hardware  Co. 
V.  McCarty,  10  Colo.  App.  200,  50 
Pac.  744. 

Indiana.— Scott  v.  Goldinhorst, 
123   Ind.   268,   24  N.  E.   333. 

Iowa. — Bissell  v.  Lewis,  56 
Iowa  231,   9   N.   W.   177. 

Minnesota, — Evans  v.  Sanford, 
65  Minn.  271,  68  N.  W.  21;  Smith 
V.  Headley,  33  Minn.  384,  23  N. 
W.  550;  North  Star  Iron  Works 
Co.  V.  Strong,  33  Minn.  1,  21  N. 
W.  740. 

>'ew  Jersey. — Derrickson  v. 
Edwards,  5  Dutch.  (N.  J.  L.)  468; 
Edwards  v.  Derrickson,  4  Dutch. 
(N.  J.  L.)  39;  Whitenack  v.  Noe, 
3   Stockt.    (N.  J.  Eq.)    321. 

2  Cary  Hardware  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Carty, 10  Colo.  App.  200,  50  Pac. 
744;  Bradish  v.  James,  83  Mo. 
313;    Oster    v.    Rabeneau,   46   Mo. 


271 


CLAIM PORTION    OF   LAND   DESCRIBED. 


:§io4 


more  has  been  included  without  fraudulent  intent.^  But  in 
this  respect,  it  should  be  remembered  that  a  more  definite  de- 
scription is  not  required  than  the  statute  prescribes/  if  alleged 
with  sufficient  certainty.^  Where  the  statute  limits  the  lien 
to  a  certain  acreage,  that  acreage  should  be  described  so  that 
it  can  be  identified.*'  But  a  description  valid  between  original 
parties  may  be  void  for  uncertainty  where  the  interests 
of  third  persons  have  intervened.'^   Generally  the  curtilage  need 


595.  Parties  were  not  misled; 
Crawfordsville  v.  Johnson,  51 
Ind.    397. 

InsuMcient — Two  mills,  situ- 
ated on  blocks  numbered  three 
and  four  in  a  certain  town,  the 
blocks  separated  by  a  street,  one 
of  the  mills  being  built  on  por- 
tions of  all  of  the  lots  in  block 
three,  and  the  other  on  a  part 
of  the  lots  in  block  four.  Lemly 
V.  La  Grange  Iron,  &c.,  Co.,  65 
Mo.  545.  The  court  may  order  a 
survey.  Swope  v.  Stantzenber- 
ger,  59  Tex.  387. 

3  White  Lake  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Russell,  22  Neb.  126,  34  N.  W. 
104,  3  Am.  St.  262. 

4Tibbetts  v.  Moore,  23  Cal. 
208;  Crawfordsville  v.  Boots,  76 
Ind.  32,  Gerard  v.  Birch,  1  Stew. 
(N.  J.  Eq.)  317. 

o  Irwin  V.  Crawfordsville,  72 
Ind.  Ill;  Crawfordsville  v.  Irwin, 
46  Ind.  438.     See  §  7L 

Insufficient. — Where  -a  notice 
of  a  lien,  under  the  mechanic's 
lien  law,  described  the  property 
as  follows:  "A  part  of  lot  3, 
section  36,  township  33,  range  4 
west,  containing  5  acres,  situated 
in  Starke  county,  Indiana,"  it 
was  held  void  for  uncertainty. 
Howell    V.    Zerbee,    26    Ind.    214. 


"The  north  part"  of  a  specified 
lot  in  a  named  addition,  "as  well 
as  the  one-story  frame  dwelling 
house  recently  erected  thereon  by 
you,"  is  insuflacient.  Maynard  v. 
East,  13  Ind.  App.  432,  41  N.  E. 
839,  55  Am.  St.  238.  Describing 
the  property  to  be  charged  as  a 
dwelling  house  on  the  "south  end 
of  lot  6,"  to  which  the  said  A  has 
a  leasehold  interest,  when  in  fact 
A's  leasehold  interest  was  to  100 
feet  on  the  north  end  of  the  lot, 
held  not  sufficient  to  establish  a 
lien.  Runey  v.  Rea,  7  Ore.  130. 
See  also,  Williams  v.  Porter,  51 
Mo.  441;  Kellogg  v.  Littell  & 
Smythe  Mfg.  Co.,  1  Wash.  407, 
25  Pac.  461;  Cowie  v.  Ahrenstedt, 
1  Wash.  416,  25  Pac.  458. 

6  Ranson  v.  Sheehan,  78  Mo. 
667.  A      description:       "Said 

house  is  situated  near  the  north- 
east corner  of  the  northeast 
quarter  of  southwest  quarter  of 
section  9,  township  50,  range  10, 
in  Audrain  county,  Missouri,  is 
insufficient  to  create  a  lien,  for 
failure  to  specify  the  acre  on 
which  the  lien  is  claimed-  Wright 
V.  Beardsley,  69  Mo.  548. 

"  Rail  V.  McCrary,  45  Mo.  App. 
365. 


§104] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


272 


not  be  included  in  the  description.^  As  a  matter  of  course,  the 
lien  cannot  be  enforced  on  land  that  is  not  included  in  the  de- 
scription.**  But  under  a  statute  allowing  a  reasonable  space 
about  the  building  to  be  held  subject  to  the  lien  on  the  building, 
and  the  building  was  on  two  adjoining  lots,  one  of  which  was 
described,  the  description  was  held  sufficient. ^"^  If  no  one  is 
fraudulently  affected  by  the  omission  of  a  very  small  portion 
of  land,  the  lien  will  be  held  to  cover  such  portion  omitted. ^^ 
Generally  where  a  lot  is  described  as  facing  on  a  street,  it 
means  the  entire  lot  extending  through  to  the  other  street  or 
alley,  as  the  case  may  be.^^  A  description  that  mentions  the 
street  and  number  with  the  number  of  feet,^^  and  with  the 
name  of  the  owner, ^^  or  designates  the  corner  of  intersecting 
streets, ^•'*  or  on  a  street  leading  from  a  designated  place,  op- 
posite a  certain  street  naming  the  occupant. ^'^  or  designating 
the  house  and  street,  as  between  two  certain  streets,^"  or  nam- 
ing the  side  of  the  street,  or  in  a  certain  place  adjoining  two 


8  Pretz's  Appeal,  35  Pa.  349 ; 
Holmes  v.  Hutchins,  38  Neb.  601, 
57  N.  W.  514.  No  lien  if  there  is 
no  description.  Bell  v.  Bosche,  41 
Neb.  853,  60  N.  W.  92. 

9  Willamette  Steam  Mill,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Kremer  (Cal.),  24  Pac. 
1026;  Barnett  v.  Murray,  62  Mo. 
App.  500. 

i'>  Willamette  Steam  Mill,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Kremer,  94  Cal.  205,  29 
Pac.  633. 

11  Springer  v.  Kroeschell,  161 
111.  358,  43  N.  B.  1084. 

12  Field  V.  Oberteuffer,  2  Phila. 
(Pa.)  271,  14  Leg.  Int.  124. 

13  France  v.  Woolston,  4 
Houst.  (Del.)  557;  Walkam  v. 
Henry,  7  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  532,  27  N. 
Y.   Supp.   997. 

1^  Gillispie  v.  Remington,  66 
Tex.  108,  18  S.  W.  338. 


15  Caldwell  v.  Asbury,  29  Ind. 
451. 

16  Parker  v.  Bell,  7  Gray 
(Mass.)    429. 

17  Matlack  v.  Lare,  32  Mo.  262 ; 
Harker  v.  Conrad,  12  Serg.  &  R. 
(Pa.)  301,  14  Am.  Dec.  691.  A 
description:  "That        certain 

three-story  building  No.  , 

situate  and  being  in  the  city  of 
Richmond,  Va.,  on  G  Street,  be- 
tween S  and  H  streets,  and  the 
lot  or  piece  of  ground  and  cur- 
tilage appurtenant  to  the  said 
building,  fronting  on  the  south 
side  of  G  street,  49  feet,  and 
running   back    156    feet,    more   or 

less      of     which 

Wirt  E.  Taylor  is  the  owner  or 
reputed  owner,"  held  suiBcient. 
Taylor  v.  Netherwood,  91  Va.  88, 
20   S.   E.   888. 


273 


CLAIM DESCRIPTION    OF    BUILDING. 


[§105 


designated  places,  is  sufficient. ^^  But  in  such  cases,  the  prop- 
erty must  be  such  as  can  be  ascertained  from  the  statement. ^^ 
And  whether  or  not  it  can  be,  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the 
jury.2o  Lot  and  block  numbers,  giving  state  and  city,  are 
generally  sufficient,  when  correctly  stated.-^  Especially  is  this 
true  when  such  description  is  sufficient  to  put  interested  par- 
ties on  inquiry .22  If  a  plat  is  vacated,  a  description  by  blocks 
will  not  include  the  land  in  the  vacated  streets,  but  would  in- 
clude the  land  within  the  designated  lots.23  If  the  owner  ob- 
literates the  lines  of  demarkation  between  two  adjoining  lots 
a  description  reaching  over  an  adjoining  lot  will  be  held  good. 2^ 
A  description  by  giving  the  name  of  the  land  grant,25  or  the 
section  and  township  numbers,  has  been  held  sufficient.26 

§  105.     Claim  or  statement — Description  of  building — Error. 

— Where  the  building  is  to  be  described,  the  same  rule  applies 


18  Duffy  V.  Brady,  4  Abb.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  432;  Parker  v.  Bell,  7 
Gray  (Mass.)  429;  Shaw  v. 
Barnes,  5  Pa.  St.  18,  47  Am.  Dec. 
399;  Shaffer  v.  Hull,  3  Pa.  L.  J. 
321. 

19  In  re  Hill's  Estate,  2  Clark 
(Pa.)  96,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  323. 

20  Cleverly  v.  Moseley,  148 
Mass.  280,  19  N.  E.  394. 

210'Halloran  v.  Leachey,  39 
Ind.  150;  Hill  v.  Gray,  81  Mo. 
App.  456;  Whiteside  v.  Lebcher, 
7  Mont.  473,  17  Pac.  548;  White 
Lake  Lumber  Co-  v.  Russell,  22 
Neb.  126,  34  N.  W.  104;  Dickson 
V.  Corbett,  11  Nev.  277;  Collins 
V.  Snoke,  9  Wash.  566,  38  Pac. 
161. 

22  White  V.  Stanton,  111  Ind. 
540,  13  N.  E.  48.  Block  number 
alone  held  insufficient  as  not 
stating  quantity  of  land  sought 
to  be  held.  Knox  v.  Starks,  4 
Minn.  7. 
18 


23  Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Des 
Moines  Driving  Park,  97  Iowa, 
25,   65   N.   W.   1017. 

24  Sawyer-Austin  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Clark,  172  Mo.  588,  73  S.  W. 
137.  Where  the  lots  were  de- 
scribed as  1  and  2,  and  the 
proofs  showed  them  to  be  1  and 
3,  only  lot  one  was  held.  Heyde 
V.  Suit,  22  Ind.  App.  83,  52  N.  E. 
456. 

25  Ford  V.  Springer  Land  Assn, 
8  N.  M.  37,  41  Pac.  541. 

26  A  description  of  land,  in  the 
notice  of  lien,  by  sections  and 
townships,  is  sufficient,  even  if 
the  amount  of  land  which  such 
sections  if  full,  would  contain, 
exceeds  the  number  of  acres 
stated,  as  a  township  does  not 
necessarily  contain  the  full 
amount  of  640  acres  in  each  one 
of  its  36  sections.  Springer 
Land  Assn.  v.  Ford,  168  U.  S.  513. 
42   L.   ed.   561,   18   Sup.   Ct.   170. 


§105 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


274 


as  in  the  description  of  the  land,  that  is.  it  must  be  sufficient 
to  identify  the  property  sought  to  be  held.^  If  otherwise  suf- 
ficient, giving  the  wrong  number  of  stories,^  inaccurate  width 
or  depth,  will  not  defeat  the  lien.^  However,  a  description 
mentioning  "certain  frame  buildings'"  on  lot  13,  when  it  should 
have  been  14.  is  not  sufficient.'*  As  a  general  rule  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  main  building  will  not  include  other  structures  even 
if  appurtenant,  such  as  fences,  outhouses,  or  stables,  especially 
when  not  all  erected  under  one  contract.-^  A  "double  house" 
is  not  the  same  as  a  block  of  two  buildings.®  Merely  giving 
a  description  of  the  labor,  without  mention  of  buildings,  when 
it  is  necessary  to  mention  buildings,  will  be  insufficient."  And 
the  same  is  true  if  it  is  so  indefinite  that  it  can  not  be  ascer- 
tained upon  which  one  of  several  buildings  a  lien  is  claimed. ^ 


1  Tibbets  v.  Moore,  23  Cal.  20S; 
McNamee  v.  Rauck,  128  Ind.  59, 
27  N.  E.  423;  Northwestern  Ce- 
ment, etc.,  Co.  V.  Norwegian,  etc., 
Seminary,  43  Minn.  449,  45  N.  W. 
S6S.  Mountain  City  Market 
House  Assn.  v.  Kearns,  103  Pa. 
St.  403;  Mercer  Milling  &  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Kreaps,  18  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  1;  Odd  Fellows'  Hall  v.  Mas- 
ser,  24  Pa.  St.  507,  64  Am.  Dec. 
675.  Claiming  a  lien  on  a  des- 
ignated church  in  a  certain  town, 
for  material  furnished,  though  it 
describes  the  lot  on  which  the 
building  is  situated  as  lying  in 
an  addition  which  does  not  exist, 
is  sufficient.  Harrisburg  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Washburn,  29  Ore.  150,  44 
Pac.  390.  A  mill  propelled  only 
by  water  at  the  time  of  filing  a 
lien  against  it,  but  afterwards 
propelled  by  steam,  and  being 
two  stories  high,  with  a  low 
stone  basement,  and  a  window  in 
the   gable  end,   was   described   as 


a  iwo-story  frame  steam  grist- 
mill, with  an  accurate  descrip- 
tion as  to  location,  the  descrip- 
tion was  good.  Brundage  v.  Phil- 
lips, 3  Grant  Cas.  (Pa.)  313.  The 
description,  "the  brick  city  hall 
building  to  be  erected  in  the  city 
of  Hillsboro,"  is  sufficient. 
Scholes  V.  Hughes,  77  Tex.  482, 
14  S.  W.  148.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.   tit.   Mechanics'  Liens,   §  136. 

2  Wethered  v.  Garrett,  7  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  529,  535. 

■^  Kennedy  v.  House,  41  Pa.  39, 
SO  Am.  Dec.  594. 

■*  Goodrich  Lumber  Co.  v.  Da- 
vie,   13   Mont.    76,    32    Pac.    282. 

5  Miller  v.  Heath,  22  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.    313. 

c  Roat  V.  Freer,  167  Pa.  St. 
614,   31   Atl.    861. 

"  Warren  v.  Quade,  3  Wash. 
750,  29   Pac.  827. 

s  Short  V.  Ames,  121  Pa.  530,  15 
Atl.  608;  Wharton  v.  Douglas,  92 
Pa.  St.  66;   Hassenfus  v.  Philadel- 


275 


CLAIM ERRONEOUS   DESCRIPTION. 


[§105 


As  a  general  rule  a  correct  description  of  the  land  will  include 
the  building  on  it,  and  the  lien  will  attach  to  all,  although  the 
buildings  are  not  mentioned.^  Merely  giving  the  wrong  block 
number,^^  or  section, ^^  where  enough  remains  to  identify  the 
property,  will  not  be  fatal  as  between  original  parties.^^  jf 
the  lien  can  be  held  upon  the  building,  separate  from  the  land, 
and  the  description  of  the  building  is  correct,  and  that  of  the 
land  incorrect,  it  will  be  valid. ^^  Unless  the  error  in  the  name 
of  street  or  subdivision  is  such  as  will  mislead,  or  fail  to  iden- 
tify the  property,  it  will  generally  be  held  to  be  immaterial.^* 
If  the  mistake  is  a  palpable  one  and  does  not  mislead  any  one, 
it  will  not  be  fatal. ^^     But  if  the  statement  fails  to  name  the 


phia  Packing,  &c.,  Co.,  15  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  650;  In  re  Philadelphia  Pack- 
ing Co.'s  Estate,  4  Pa.  Dist.  57. 

9  Johnson  v.  Salter,  70  Minn. 
146,   72   N.  W.   974. 

10  McLean  v.  Young,  2  MacAr- 
thur,  (D.  C.)  184;  DeWitt  v. 
Smith,  63  Mo.  263;  Holland  v. 
Garland,   13  Phila.    (Pa.)   544. 

iiTulloch  V.  Rogers,  52  Minn. 
114,  53  N.  W.  1063. 

12  National  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bow- 
man, 77  Iowa  706,  42  N.  W.  557. 

13  Alabama. — Bedsole  v.  Peters, 
79  Ala.  133;  Turner,  v.  Robbins, 
78  Ala.  592. 

Florida. — Emerson  v.  Gainey, 
26  Fla.  133,  7  So.  526. 

Michigan. — Hannah,  &c..  Mer- 
cantile Co.  V.  Mosser,  105  Mich. 
18,  62  N.  W.  1120. 

Missouri.  —  Hydraulic  Press 
Brick  Co.  v.  Schlingmann,  88  Mo. 
App.  17. 

Nebraska.  —  Western  Cornice 
Manuf'g  Works  v.  Leavenworth, 
52  Neb.  418,  72  N.  W.  592. 

Oregon. — Kezartee  v.  Marks, 
15  Ore.  529,  16  Pac.  407. 


!■!  Bassett  v.  Menage,  52  Minn. 
121,  53  N.  W.  1064;  McHugh  v. 
Slack,  11  Wash.  370,  39  Pac.  674. 
In  describing  land  in  a  mechanic's 
lien,  the  omission  of  the  first  let- 
ter "n"  in  the  word  "Downing" 
street  is  immaterial.  O'Brien  v. 
Krockinski,  50  111.  App.  456. 
The  description  of  the  premises 
filed  with  the  register  of  deeds, 
viz.,  lots  5  and  6,  in  block  18,  in 
"North  Minneapolis  Addition  to 
Minneapolis,"  sufficiently  identi- 
fies lots  5  and  6,  in  block  18,  in 
"North  Minneapolis,"  within  the 
city  of  Minneapolis.  Russell  v. 
Hayden,  40  Minn.  88,  41  N.  W. 
456. 

15  Describing  the  property 
against  which  the  lien  is  sought 
as  lot  21  in  "Haneys"  instead  of 
"Henley's"  addition  to  a  certain 
town,  will  be  held  sufficient  as  to 
owners  who  had  the  building 
erected,  when  it  appears  that 
they  suggested  the  filing  of  the 
lien,  that  there  is  no  such  lot  as 
the  former  in  the  town,  that  the 


106] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


276 


city  or  county,  or  contain  other  statements  whereby  the  prop- 
erty can  be  identified,  it  is  void.^^  The  owner's  name  is  al- 
ways considered  to  be  a  very  great  aid  in  the  description  of  the 
property,  as  liens  are  usually  indexed  in  the  owner's  name.^'' 
But  if  it  cannot  be  identified  with  the  owner's  name,  then  the 
giving  of  such  name  will  not  aid  in  the  description  of  the 
property. ^s 

§  106.    Claim  or  statement — Averment  of  ownership. — One 

of  the  purposes  of  the  lien  statement  being  to  fasten  a  lien  on 
a  certain  person's  property,  it  necessarily  follows  that  the 
statement  that  does  not  on  its  face  show  the  person  whose 
property  it  is  sought  to  make  subject  to  the  lien,  is  void.^  The 
name  may  be  omitted  under  some  authorities  when  it  is  un- 


contractors  have  never  erected 
any  other  building  for  them,  and 
that  they  have  not  had  any  other 
building  erected  within  the  town 
for  10  years-  Smith  v.  Newbaur, 
144  Ind.  95,  42  N.  E.  40,  33  L.  R. 
A.  685. 

16  Anderson  v.  Bingham,  1  Colo. 
App.  222,  28  Pac.  145;  Brown  v. 
Myers,  145  Pa.  St.  17,  23  Atl.  254, 
29   W.   N.   Cas.   393. 

17  Sayre-Newton  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Park,  4  Colo.  App.  482,  36  Pac. 
445.  If  there  remains  sufficient 
for  identification,  it  is  valid. 
Martin  v.  Simmons,  11  Colo.  411, 
18  Pac.  535;  Wright  v.  Beardsley, 
69  Mo.  548;  Tinker  v.  Geraghty, 
1  E.  D.  Smith   (N.  Y.)    687. 

18  Springer  v.  Keyser,  6  Whart. 
(Pa.)  186;  Montrose  v.  Conner,  8 
Cal.  344.  A  mechanic's  claim 
against  a  house  and  lot  in  A 
township,  B  county,  belonging 
to  C,  adjoining  lands  of  D.,  is 
sufficiently  descriptive  of  the  lo- 
cality, where  it  does  not   appear 


that  C  had  other  lands  in  the 
same  township.  Knabb's  Appeal, 
10  Pa.  186,  51  Am.  Dec.  472.  Name 
of  husband  for  that  of  wife,  in- 
sufficient. Basshor  v.  Kilbourn, 
3  MacArthur    (D.  C.)    273. 

1  California. — Phelps  v.  Max- 
well's Creek  Gold  Min.  Co.,  49  Cal. 
336;  Hicks  v.  Murray,  43  Cal.  515. 

Kansas. — Blattner  v.  Wadleigh, 
48  Kan.  290,  29  Pac.  165. 

Maryland — Reindollar  v.  Plick- 
inger,   59    Md.    469. 

Montana.  —  Missoula  Mercan- 
tile Co.  v.  O'Donell,  24  Mont.  65, 
60  Pac.  594. 

ly^evada. — Malter  v.  Falcon  Min. 
Co.,  18  Nev.  209,  2  Pac.  50. 

IVew  York. — McElwee  v.  Sand- 
ford,  53  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  89; 
Beals  v.  Cong.  B'Nai  Jeshurun,  1 
E.  D.  Smith,   (N.  Y.)   654. 

Rhode  Island. — Bliss  v.  Patten, 
5  R.  I.  376. 

Texas. — Gillespie  v.  Remington, 
66  Tex.  108,  18  S.  W.  338. 

Wyoming. — Wyman  v.  Quayle,  9 


277 


CLAIM — AVERMENT   OF  OWNERSHIP. 


[§106 


known,2  and  this  fact  is  averred.^  Under  some  statutes  it  is 
sufficient  if  the  name  of  the  reputed  owner  is  given^  but  even 
then  it  must  be  shown  that  the  real  owner  is  not  known.^ 
And  where  no  provision  is  made  in  the  statute  as  to  the  name 
of  the  reputed  owner  being  sufficient,  then  it  has  been  held 
that  where  the  name  given  is  the  best  that  could  be  known 
from  information  and  belief,  that  was  sufficient.^  Under  a 
statute  that  provided  that  the  claimant  should  make  an  "ac- 
count in  writing,"  with  no  reference  to  statement  of  the  own- 
er's name,  it  has  been  held  that  this  could  be  inferred  from 
the    statements    made    in    reference   to   the   account.'^      Under 


Wyo.  335,  63  Pac.  988;  Provost  v. 
Shirk,  223  111.  468,  79  N.  E.  178. 
Substantial  compliance.  United 
States  Blowpipe  Co.  v.  Spencer, 
61  W.  Va.  191,  56  S.  E.  345. 

2  West  Coast  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Newkirk,  SO  Cal.  275,  22  Pac.  231. 
The  name  is  presumed  to  be  cor- 
rectly given.  Kelly  v.  Lemberger, 
(Cal.)  46  Pac.  8.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens  §  137. 

3  Russell  V.  Hayner,  130  Fed. 
90,   64   C.   C.   A.   424. 

4  Hensel  v.  Johnson,  94  Md.  729, 
51  Atl.  575;  In  re  Gilbert  Hill's 
Estate,  2  Clark  (Pa.)  96,  3  Pa.  L. 
J.  323;  Seattle  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Sweeney,  33  Wash.  691,  74  Pac. 
1001;  Ford  v.  Springer  Land 
Assn.,  8  N.  M.  37,  41  Pac.  541.  A 
recorded  notice  of  a  lien  which 
stated  that  "S.  A.  is  the  name  of 
the  reputed  owner  of  the  prem- 
ises," sufficiently  named  the 
owner,  where  S.  A.  owned  the 
premises,  since  he  could  not 
have  been  misled  by  being  de- 
scribed as  "reputed  owner."  Bry- 
an V.  Abbott,  131  Cal.  222,  63  Pac. 
363. 


5  McPhee  v.  Litchfield,  145 
Mass.  565,  14  N.  E.  923,  1  Am. 
St.  482;  Christine  v.  Manderson, 
2  Pa.  St.  363;  Springer  Land 
Ass'n.  V.  Ford  168  U.  S.  513,  42 
L.  ed.  561,  18  Sup.  Ct.  170.  Under 
Code,  §  3672,  requiring  among  oth- 
er things,  the  name  of  the  owner 
or  reputed  owner  of  the  property 
sought  to  be  subjected,  a  notice 
reciting  that  the  land  on  which 
the  lien  is  claimed  is  reputed  to 
be  owned  by  one  H.,  and  the 
building  thereon,  by  reason  of 
which  the  lien  arose,  is  reputed 
to  be  owned  by  one  R.,  is  suffi- 
cient. Allen  V.  Rowe,  19  Ore.  188, 
23  Pac.  901. 

c  Hurlbert  v.  New  Ulm  Basket 
Works,  47  Minn.  81,  49  N.  W. 
521. 

7  Nebraska. — Garlichs  v.  Don- 
nelly, 42  Neb.  57,  60  N.  W.  323; 
Wakefield  v.  Latey,  39  Neb.  285, 
57  N.  W.  1002;  Hays  v.  Mercier, 
22  Neb.  656,  35  N.  W.  894. 

]Vew  York — Spruck  v.  McRob- 
erts,  64  Hun  (N.  Y.)  634,  19  N. 
Y.    Supp.    128. 


§  106]  PROCEEDINGS  TO'  PERFECT  LIEN.  278 

statutes  that  allow  the  building  to  be  held  liable  for  the  lien 
separate  from  the  lot  of  land  upon  which  it  is  located,  then 
the  statement  will  be  good  as  to  the  building  if  correctly  described, 
if  it  did  not  contain  the  correct  name  of  the  owner  of  the  land.^  If 
the  wrong  name  is  given  through  the  fault  of  the  real  owner,  he 
will  be  estopped  from  taking  advantage  of  that  fact.^  An  al- 
legation of  ignorance  of  the  owner's  name,  will  not  excuse  a 
failure  to  give  the  true  name,  if  the  claimant  did  not  exercise 
diligence  in  trying  to  ascertain  it.^*^  Where  property  is  trans- 
ferred during  the  work,  it  is  advisable  to  set  up  both  the  name 
of  the  person  who  was  owner  when  the  claimant  was  em- 
ployed, and  the  owner  when  the  lien  is  filed. ^^  As  a  general 
rule,  however,  it  is  sufficient  if  the  name  of  the  person  is  given 
who  owns  the  property  when  the  lien  is  filed. ^2  jf  ^j^g  name 
given  is  that  shown  by  the  public  records,  this  is  sufficient. ^^ 
By  owner,  is  meant  the  owner  of  the  legal  and  not  the  equit- 
able title, ^^  but  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  statement  to  show 
whether  the  owner's  interest  is  of  a  legal  or  equitable  charac- 

North      Dakota,  —  Red     River  contain     a     notice     "to     *     *     * 

Lumber   Co.   v.   Friel,    7    N.    Dak.  wiiose    estate    in    the    same      the 

46,  73   N.  W.   203.  said  account  refers," 

s  Montana  Lumber,  &c.,  Co.  v.  means  the  owner  when  the  con- 
Obelisk  Mining,  &c.,  Co.,  15  Mont.  struction  was  begun  and  the  lien 
20,   37  Pac.  897.  attached,     and     not     the     owner 

9  Waters  v.  Johnson,  (Mich.)  when  the  account  was  lodged. 
96  N.  W.  504,  10  Detroit  Leg.  N.  Chace  v.  Pidge,  21  R.  I.  70,  41  Atl. 
513.     If  the  name  of  one  member  1015. 

of  the   firm    is   given,   the   others  12  Chicago   Lumber   Co.   v.    Dil- 

not  showing  that  they  are  preju-  Ion,    13    Colo.    App.    196,    56    Pac. 

diced,  it  is  sufficient.    Cady  Lum-  989;    Davis  v.   Big  Horn  Lumber 

ber  Co.  v.  Conkling,  70  Neb.  807,  Co.,  14  Wyo.  517,  85  Pac.  980. 

98  N.  W.  42.  13  Bitter    v.    Mouat    Lumber    & 

10  Waters  v.  Johnson,  134  Inv.  Co.,  10  Colo.  App.  307,  51 
Mich.  436,  96  N.  W.  504,  10  Dec  Pac.  519;  Shryock  v.  Hensel,  95 
Leg.  N.  513.  Md.  614,  53  Atl.  412. 

11  Ah  Louis  v.  Harwood,  140  i^  Sprague  Inv.  Co.  v.  Mouat 
Cal.  700,  74  Pac  41.  Gen.  Laws,  Lumber  &  Inv.  Co.,  14  Colo.  App. 
c.    206,    §  7,   requiring   the   lodged  107,  60  Pac.  179. 

account  for  a  mechanic's  lien  to 


279 


CLAIM AVERMENT   OF   OWNERSHIP. 


:§io6 


ter/^  in  the  lands  described. ^"^  Out  of  abundant  caution,  it  is 
advisable  to  state  the  names  of  all  persons  having  an  interest 
in  the  property.  The  owner  is  not  bound  by  merely  stating 
the  name  of  the  lessee/"  unless  upon  the  exercise  of  diligence 
the  owner's  name  is  still  unknown. ^^  The  name  of  the  person 
must  be  stated  with  a  sufficient  degree  of  certainty  to  show 
from  the  statement,  who  is  meant. ^^  In  determining  whether 
or  not  the  name  of  the  owner  is  sufficiently  designated  all  the 
facts  in  the  statement  are  to  be  considered.-*^  The  importance 
of  having  a  correct  name  given  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that 
notice  is  generally  given  to  third  parties  by  means  of  indexes.-^ 
Unless  some  reasonable  excuse  can  be  shown,  no  estate  can 
be  bound  unless  the  lien  statement  contains  a  proper  allega- 
tion of  the  owner's  name.22     Generally  a  palpably  erroneous 


13  Cornell  v.  Matthews,  3 
Dutch   (N.  J.  L.)   522. 

16  Ross  V.  Simon,  16  Daly  (N. 
Y.)  159,  9  N.  Y.  Supp.  536;  Thom- 
as V.  Smith,  42  Pa.  68. 

17  De  Klyn  v.  Simpson,  34  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  436,  54  N.  Y.  Supp. 
345. 

18  Grippen  v.  Weed,  22  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  593,  48  N.  Y.  Supp. 
112. 

19  Kansas.  —  Deatherage  v. 
Woods,  37  Kan.  59,  14  Pac.  474. 

New  Mexico. — Minor  v.  Mar- 
shall, 6  N.  M.  194,  27  Pac.  481. 

Pennsylvania. — Scott  v.  Sen- 
derling,  7  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  42. 

Texas. — Whiteselle  v.  Texas 
Loan  Agency,  (Tex.)  27  S.  W.  309. 

Washington. — Collins  v.  Snoke, 
9  Wash.  566,  38  Pac.  161;  Dear- 
born Foundry  Co.  v.  Augustine, 
5  Wash.  67,  31  Pac.  327.  Under 
Hill's  Code,  §  3673,  requiring  the 
name  of  the  owner  of  a  building 


sought  to  be  charged  to  be  given, 
a  statement  that  claimants  fur- 
nished materials  to  be  used  in  a 
building  for  H.  on  land  owned  by 
him  is  sufficient.  Curtis  v.  Sesta- 
novich,  26  Ore.  107,  37  Pac.  67. 

20  United  States  Blowpipe  Co. 
V.  Spencer,  40  W.  Va.  698,  21  S. 
E.  769. 

21  Thomas  v.  Smith,  42  Pa. 
68. 

22  Grippen  v.  Weed,  22  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  593,  18  N.  Y.  Supp. 
112.  Where  it  is  required  that  a 
lien  notice  shall  contain  "the 
name  of  the  owner"  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  parties  at  the  head  of 
the  notice  as  follows:  "W.  and 
M.,  Subcontractors,  versus  B., 
Contractor,  and  M.,  Owner," — is 
not  such  a  direct  allegation  of 
the  owner's  name  as  the  statute 
contemplates.  White  v.  MuUins, 
2  Idaho  1164,  31  Pac.  801. 


§107] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


280 


or  frivolous  statement  will  not  defeat  the  lien.^^  If  the  proper 
name  is  given,  it  will  be  sufficient  although  the  property  stands 
on  the  records  in  the  name  of  another,  where  no  innocent  per- 
son is  misled  thereby.^^ 

§  107.  Claim  or  statement — Peculiar  ownership. — Since 
married  women  have  generally  been  given  the  rights  of  a 
feme  sole,  the  ownership  of  the  woman  must  be  shown  with 
the  same  degree  of  certainty  as  if  she  were  a  man.^  Sometimes 
it  has  been  held  sufficient  where  an  averment  of  reputed  own- 
ership is  allowed  and  the  husband  is  the  authorized  agent  of 
the  wife,  to  give  the  name  of  the  husband  as  the  reputed  own- 
er.2  Under  a  statutory  provision  that  a  failure  to  state  the 
name  of  the  true  owner  shall  not  impair  the  validity  of  the 


23  Corbett  v.  Chambers,  109 
Cal.  178,  41  Pac.  873.  In  a  Min- 
nesota case,  however,  a  strict 
rule  was  followed  in  holding  that 
if  it  was  stated,  that  J.  owned 
the  S.  half  and  M.  the  N.  half, 
and  that  J.  made  the  contract  on 
behalf  of  himself  and  M.,  when 
in  fact  J.  owned  all,  it  was  in- 
sufficient. This  seems  too  tech- 
nical. Conter  v.  Farrington,  46 
Minn.  336,  48  N.  W.  1134.  So,  too, 
where  it  was  alleged  that  a  build- 
ing was  situated  on  the  lot  owned 
by  defendant,  it  was  held  insuffi- 
cient. Morrison  v.  Philippi,  35 
Minn.  192,  28  N.  W.  239;  Knabb's 
Appeal,  10  Pa.  St.  186,  51  Am. 
Dec.  472. 

2  4McHugh  V.  Slack,  11  Wash. 
370,  39  Pac.  674;  Harrington  v. 
Miller,  4  Wash.  808,  31  Pac.  325. 

1  Bissell  V.  Lewis,  56  Iowa  231, 
9  N.  W.  177;  Reece  v.  Haymaker, 
25  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  (Pa.)  74;  Bol- 
ster V.   Stocks,   13  Wash.   460,   43 


Pac.  532,  534,  1099;  Sagmeister 
V.  Foss,  4  Wash.  320,  39  Pac.  80, 
744.  Community  Property.  —  A 
notice  of  a  lien  against  commu- 
nity property,  which  only  names 
the  husband  as  owner,  is  suffi- 
cient, where  the  notice  does  not 
show  on  its  face  that  it  was 
community  property.  Collins  v. 
Snoke,  9  Wash.  566,  38  Pac.  161. 
2  Dennis  v.  Walsh,  41  N.  Y.  St. 
103,  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  257.  The 
code  provides  that  a  notice  of 
mechanic's  lien  shall  contain  the 
name  and  the  nature  of  the  title 
of  the  person  who  caused  the 
improvement  to  be  made.  Where 
there  was  evidence  tending  to 
show  that  plaintiff  was  justified 
in  assuming  that  the  property 
was  owned  by  the  husband,  the 
fact  that  he  alleges  that  the  hus- 
band was  the  reputed  owner  and 
that  the  wife  claimed  some  in- 
terest in  the  property,  will  not 
defeat  his  right  to  a  lien,  though 


281  CLAIM — PECULIAR  OWNERSHIP.  [§  107 

lien,  the  wife  may  be  held  if  the  name  of  her  husband  is  given.^ 
Where  the  lien  is  allowed  upon  the  building  separate  from  the 
land,  it  has  been  held  that  an  allegation  of  her  ownership  in  the 
building  is  not  sufficient  to  include  the  land."*  This  seems  to 
be  rather  a  technical  holding.  As  to  whose  name  shall  be 
given,  where  the  owner  is  deceased,  there  is  some  contrariety 
of  opinion,  one  court  holdiuig  that  a  statement  of  the  name  of 
the  owner,  as  the  "estate  of  M.  R.  deceased,"  was  sufficient.^ 
Many  of  the  statutes  make  provision  as  to  what  shall  be  done 
in  case  of  the  death  of  the  owner,  and  it  would  seem  that  in  the 
absence  of  such  provision  it  would  be  properly  stated  if  it  was 
against  the  estate  of  the  deceased  person,  as  the  claim  is  of  that 
character  that  it  should  be  settled  by  the  administrator  of 
the  estate,  and  would  be  a  lien  prior  to  any  interest  of  the  heir. 
If  the  owners  are  a  corporation,  then  that  name  should  be 
given;  if  it  is  merely  an  association,  then  the  individuals  com- 
posing the  association,  either  by  their  associate  name  or  any 
other  manner  that  would  reasonably  identify  the  property 
sought  to  be  held.*'  If  the  property  is  held  by  joint  tenants, 
the  names  of  all  should  be  given."  If  the  property  is  held 
under  an  executory  contract,  it  should  set  out  this  fact,  and  the 
statement  give  the  name  of  the  record  owner  as  well  as  the 

the     property     belonged     to     the  c  Arata  v.  Tellurium  Gold,  &c., 

wife.      Santa      Cruz      Rock-Pave-  Min.  Co.,  65  Cal.  340,  4  Pac.  195; 

ment  Co.  v.  Lyons,  133  Cal.  114,  65  Beals  v.  Congregation  B'nai  Jesh- 

Pac.  329.  urun  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  654. 

3  Walkam  v.  Henry,  7  Misc.  7  Where  a  statute  requires  a 
(N.  Y.)  532,  27  N.  Y.  Supp.  997.  lien  claim  to  state  "the  name  of 

4  Shannon  v.  Shultz,  87  Pa.  St.  the  owner  or  reputed  owner  if 
481.  known,"    a    claim    which    states 

5  Reece  v.  Haymaker,  25  Pittsb.  that  it  was  to  be  paid  by  "J.  L., 
Leg.  J.  (Pa.)  74.  Another  court  who  was  and  still  is  the  reputed 
held  the  same  way,  but  under  a  owner"  of  the  land,  and  that  J. 
statute  that  did  not  require  the  L.  and  M.  L.  are  the  reputed  own- 
name  of  the  owner  to  be  set  out.  ers  of  the  building  on  which  the 
Welsh  V.  McGrath,  59  Iowa  519,  claim  rests  is  sufficient.  Palmer 
10  N.  W.  810,  13  N.  W.  638.  v.   Lavigne,   104   Cal.   30,   37   Pac. 


107] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


282 


purchaser. s  But  as  a  protection  against  third  parties,  the 
statement  should  always  contain  the  name  of  the  record  own- 
er.^ As  between  the  original  parties,  the  statement  will  be 
good  if  it  contains  the  name  of  the  person  who  is  in  possession 
under  an  executory  contract. ^"^  Unless  the  statement  contains 
the  name  of  the  purchaser  it  is  doubtful  whether  his  interest 
will  be  held.^^  Where  the  statute  requires  the  name  of  the 
owner  to  be  stated,  and  the  statute  likewise  makes  the  owner 
liable  for  the  improvements  made  by  a  lessee,  the  statement  is 
void  unless  it  contains  the  name  of  the  lessor  owner,  so  far  as 
it  may  affect  his  interest. ^^  ^  better  way  is  to  give  the  names 
of  both  the  lessor  owner  and  the  lessee,  and  the  facts  under 
which  the  claim  is  asserted. ^^     Where  property  is  transferred 


775;  Drew  Glass  Co.  v.  Eagle  "SHU 
Co.,  1  Kan.  App.  614,  42  Pac.  387. 

8  Kealey  v.  Murray,  15  X.  Y. 
Supp.  403,  61  Hun  (N.  Y.)  619 
(without  opinion). 

9  Packard  v.  Sugarman,  31 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  623,  66  N.  Y.  Supp. 
30. 

10  Kezartee  v.  Marks,  15  Ore. 
529,  16  Pac.  407.  So  held  where 
deed  was  held  in  escrow.  Chi- 
cago Lumber  Co.  v.  Dillon,  13 
Colo.  App.  196,  56  Pac.  989. 

11  Missoula  Mercantile  Co.  v. 
O'Donnell,  24  Mont.  65,  60  Pac. 
594,  991. 

12  De  Klyn  v.  Gould,  165  X. 
Y.  282,  31  Civ.  Proc.  (X.  Y.)  223, 
59  X.  E.  95.  80  Am.  St.  719,  (X. 
Y.) ;  Jones  v.  Crumb,  53  Hun  631, 
6  X.  Y.  Supp.  338;  Hankinson  v. 
Riker,  10  Misc.  (X.  Y.)  185,  30  X. 
Y.  Supp.  1040.  A  notice  of  me- 
chanic's lien,  which  states  merely 
the  lease  of  the  ground  to  a  cer- 
tain person,  on  which  is  the  build- 
ing   sought    to    be    charged,    and 


after  description  of  building  and 
ground,  and  mention  of  the  owner 
of  the  ground,  declares  the  per- 
son first  named  lessee  of  "said 
property,"  does  not  show,  either 
directly  or  by  necessary  infer- 
ence, who  is  the  owner  of  the 
building,  and  is  not,  therefore, 
within  the  requirement  of  Hill's 
Code,  §3673.  Gordon  v.  Deal,  23 
Ore.  153,  31  Pac.  287. 

13  A  notice  of  lien  claim,  alleg- 
ing that  the  name  of  the  owner 
of  the  property  is  J.,  and  that 
one  S.  is  owner  of  the  ground  on 
which  the  property  is  located,  and 
setting  forth  a  leasehold  interest 
in  J.,  sufficiently  complies  with 
the  statutory  requirement  that 
the  notice  shall  give  the  name  of 
the  reputed  owner  of  the  prem- 
ises, though  S.  is  not  the  owner 
of  the  land.  Hopkins  v.  Jamie- 
son-Dixon  Mill  Co.,  11  Wash.  308, 
39  Pac.  815.  Under  the  Xew  York 
statutes  which  provide  that  a 
failure  to  give  the  correct  name 


283 


CLAIM DESCRIPTION    OF    SERVICES. 


[§108 


during  the  time  that  the  work  is  performed,  it  is  generally  held 
that  the  lien  statement  is  sufficient  if  the  name  of  the  person 
is  given  who  owns  the  property  when  the  statement  is  filed. ^'^ 
And  under  some  statutes  it  is  held  that  if  the  statement  con- 
tains the  name  of  the  person  who  owned  the  land  at  the  time 
the  contract  was  made,  or  the  name  of  the  person  at  the  time 
the  statement  is  filed,  it  is  sufficient. ^^  Under  the  Pennsyl- 
vania statutes,  it  is  held  that  the  name  of  the  person  who  holds 
the  legal  title  at  the  time  the  work  is  commenced  is  the  proper 
one  to  be  given  in  the  statement. ^^ 

§  108.  Claim  or  statement — Description  of  services  or  ma- 
terial.— As  the  mechanics'  lien  rests  upon  the  doctrine  that  the 
labor  or  materials  having  gone  into  the  building,  that  the 
building  should  be  held  to  pay  for  the  same,  it  naturally  fol- 
lows, that  the  lien  statement  should  in  some  manner  show  that 
the  material  or  labor  was  or  was  to  be  furnished  or  expended 
upon  the  property  described.^  And  this  fact  is  determined  from 


will  not  Invalidate  the  lien,  if  a 
wrong  name  is  given  the  lien 
will  not  be  impaired.  Steeves  v. 
Sinclair,  171  N.  Y.  676,  64  N.  E. 
1125. 

14  Calif oruia. — Corbett  v.  Cham- 
bers, 109  Cal.  178,  41  Pac.  873. 

Massachu'setts. — Amidon  v.  Ben- 
jamin, 128  Mass.   534. 

New  Jersey. — Derrickson  v. 
Edwards,  5  Dutch.  (N.  J.  L.)  468, 
80  Am.  Dec.  220;  Edwards  v.  Der- 
rickson, 4  Dutch,  (N.  J.  L.)  39. 

Oregon.  —  Willamette  Steam 
Mills  &c.  Co.  V.  McLeod,  27  Ore. 
272,  40  Pac.  93.  Where  a  grantor 
of  mortgaged  property  conveyed 
it  to  a  judgment  creditor  by  deed 
absolute  on  its  face,  but  in  fact 
a  mortgage,  the  fact  that  a  sec- 
ond lien  on  the  property,  styling 


the  grantee  in  the  deed  as  owner, 
after  having  filed  a  lien  in  which 
the  grantor  was  named  as  owner 
did  not  impair  the  rights  under 
the  first  lien.  Kerrigan  v.  Field- 
ing, 47  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  246,  62 
N.  Y.  Supp.  115. 

15  Ah  Louis  V.  Harwood,  140 
Cal.  500,  74  Pac.  41;  Kelly  v. 
Lemberger,  (Cal.),  46  Pac.  9; 
Pinlayson  v.  Biebighauser,  51 
Minn.  202,  53  N.  W.  362. 

I'i  Fourth  Avenue  Baptist 
Church  V.  Schreiner,  88  Pa.  St. 
124;  Jones  v.  Shawhan,  4  Watts 
&  S.  (Pa.)  257.  Or  contracted 
for.  Wagner  v.  Manbeck,  18  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  471. 

1  Illinois. — Orr  &c.  Hardware 
Co.  V.  Needham  Co.,  62  111.  App. 
152. 


108] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


284 


the  averments  contained  in  the  statement  itself.^  The  statute 
should  be  followed^  by  at  least  a  substantial  compliance  with 
its  requirements.'*  Generally  between  the  contractor  and  the 
owner,^  or  his  agent,  it  is  not  necessary  to  aver  in  the  state- 
ment that  the  material  was  actually  used  in  the  building,*'  but 
as  between  the  subcontractor  and  owner,  the  statement  should 
contain  such  an  averment,'^  as  well  as  the  kind  and  quantity 
of  material  or  work.^  Failure  to  do  so  has  been  held  to  make 
the  statement  defective.^  Under  some  statutes  a  minute  de- 
scription of  materials  is  not  required. ^^  It  is  not  essential  in 
the  subcontractor's  or  contractor's"  statement,  to  aver  that  he 


Missouri. — O'Shea  v.  O'Shea,  91 
Mo.  App.  221;  Fathman  &c.  Plan- 
ing Mill  Co.  V.  Ritter,  33  Mo.  App. ; 
404;  Holland  v.  Cunliff,  96  Mo. 
App.  67,  69  S.  W.  737. 

Peniisylyania. — S  i  n  g  e  r  1  y  v. 
Cawley,  26  Pa.  St.  248.  The  state- 
ment must  show  whether  the 
claim  is  for  work  or  materials. 
Robinson  v.  Davis,  8  Del.  Co.  Ct. 
(Pa.)  237;  Security  Nat.  Bank  v. 
St.  Croix  Power  Co.,  117  Wis.  211, 
94  N.  W.  74;  Canton  Roll  &  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Rolling  Mill  Co.  155  Fed. 
321;  Norton  &c.  Contracting  Co. 
V.  Unique  Const.  Co.,  121  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  585,  106  N.  Y.  Supp. 
372;  Stating  that  it  is  for  "out- 
side work  on  house  and  painting 
of  inside  blinds,"  is  sufficient  to 
support  a  lien.  Porteous  Decora- 
tive Co.  V.  Fee,  29  Nev.  375,  91 
Pac.  135. 

2  Knelly  v.  Horwath,  208  Pa. 
487,  57  Atl.  957;  Rowen  v.  All- 
adio,  —  Ore.  — ,  93  Pac.  929;  War- 
ren v.  Johnston,  33  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
617. 

3  Greene  v.  Ely,  2  G.  Greene, 
(Iowa)  508. 


4  Maynard  v.  Ivey,  21  Nev.  241, 
29  Pac.  1092;  Withrow  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Glasgow  Inv.  Co.,  101  Fed. 
863,  42  C.  C.  A.  61. 

5  Vogel  v.  Luitwieler,  52  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  184,  5  N.  Y.  Supp.  154. 

6  Harnish  v.  Herr,  98  Pa.  St.  6. 
'  Kling  v.   Railway   Const.   Co., 

7  Mo.  App.  410;    Russell  v.  Bell, 
44  Pa.  St.  47. 

8  Russell  V.  Bell,  44  Pa.  St.  47; 
Singerly  v.  Cawley,  26  Pa.  St. 
24S;  Lynch  v.  Feigle,  11  Phila. 
(Pa.)  247,  33  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  408; 
Lauman's  Appeal,  8  Pa.  St.  473; 
Noll  V.  Swineford,  6  Pa.  St.  187. 

9  In  re  Wells'  Estate,  2  Del.  Co. 
Ct.  (Pa.)  172.  The  entire  state- 
ment is  used  to  determine  this 
fact.  American  Car  &c.  Co.  v. 
Alexandria  Water  Co.,  215  Pa.  520, 
64  Atl.  683. 

10  Davis  V.  Livingston,  29  Cal. 
283.  The  requirement  that  a 
claim  for  mechanics'  liens  shall 
set  out  the  number  of  days  of 
labor  performed  or  furnished  (St. 
Mass.  1872,  c.  318,  §  2)  does  not 
apply  to  a  claim  arising  from  a 
contract  for  labor  only.     Patrick 


285 


CLAIM SUFFICIENT  DESCRIPTION,   ETC. 


[§109 


had  paid  for  the  materials/^  but  it  is  generally  necessary  to 
aver  that  the  materials  were  furnished  for/^  or  on  account  of/^ 
or  were  actually  used  in  the  building;  not  to  do  so  is  fatal, ^* 
and  cannot  be  cured  by  a  verdict  based  on  testimony  showing 
such  facts.i^  Where  there  are  several  buildings  erected  under 
one  contract,  especially  as  between  the  original  parties,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  specifically  state  what  went  into  each  build- 
ing.^6 

§  109.  Claim  or  statement — Sufficient  description  of  mate- 
rials.— The  statement  should  so  describe  the  labor  and  mate- 
rials as  to  enable  the  owner  to  determine  the  reasonableness, 
and  the  good  faith  of  the  same.^  If  the  statute  prescribes  a 
form,  it  should  be  followed,^  but  in  the  absence  of  such  stat- 
utory requirement,  a  statement  made  in  the  way  that  the  trade 
usually  makes  such  statements,  will  be  sufficient.^  Where  the 
contract  is  entire,  merely  giving  the  contract  price  and  the  en- 


V.  Smith,  120  Mass.  510.  "For 
work  and  labor  done  and  ma- 
terials furnished  in  the  erection 
and  construction  of  said  house" 
is  sufficiently  specific.  Sieg- 
mund  V.  Kellogg-Mackay-Camer- 
on  Co.,  38  Ind.  App.  95,  77  N.  E. 
1096. 

11  Sexton  V.  Weaver,  141  Mass. 
273,  6  N.  E.  367. 

12  Smith  V.  Baily,  8  Daly  (N. 
Y.)  128;  Nottingham  v.  McKen- 
drick,  38  Ore.  495,  57  Pac.  195, 
63  Pac.  822;  Allen  v.  Elwert,  29 
Ore.  428,  44  Pac.  823,  48  Pac.  54; 
Johnston  v.  Harrington,  5  Wash. 
73,  31  Pac.  316. 

13  Lee  V.  Exeter  Club,  9  Kulp, 
(Pa.)   209. 

14  Hill  V.  Ryan,  54  Ind.  118; 
Bouchard  v.  Gnisti,  22  R.  I.  591, 
48  Atl.  934;  Barton  v.  Rose,  48 
Ore.  235,  85  Pac.  1009. 


13  Fathman  &c.  Planing  Mill 
Co.  V.  Ritter,  33  Mo.  App.  404. 
Under  some  statutes,  such  aver- 
ment is  not  required,  however. 
Neihaus  v.  Morgan,  (Cal.)  45  Pac. 
255. 

16  White  V.  Livingston,  69  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  361,  75  N.  Y.  Supp. 
466;  Mitchell  Planing  Mill  Co.  v. 
Allison,  138  Mo.  50,  40  S.  W.  118, 
60  Am.  St.  544. 

1  Tacoma  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Kennedy  4  Wash.  305,  30  Pac.  79; 
Tacoma  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Wilson,  3  Wash.  786,  29  Pac.  829; 
Warren  v.  Quade,  3  Wash.  St.  750, 
29  Pac.  827.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  139. 

2  Clark  V.  Schatz,  24  Minn.  300. 

3  Wetmore  v.  Marsh,  81  Iowa 
677,  47  N.  W.  1021. 


§109] 


PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


286 


tire  amount  of  materials  furnished,  not  specifying  each  arti- 
cle,^ or  where  the  work  is  by  the  hour,  the  number  of  hours 
and  dates  with  the  price  per  hour,^  even  if  it  fails  to  allege  in 
express  terms  that  the  work  was  furnished  by  the  claimant,^ 
or  where  materials  were  furnished,  but  the  kind  is  not  men- 
tioned, will  be  sufficient."  A  substantial  compliance  with  the 
statute,  is  all  that  is  required.^  If  the  contract  cannot  be  com- 
pleted because  of  the  insolvency  of  the  owner,  the  statement 
should  show  what  part  of  the  materials  are  to  be  furnished  and 
what  have  already  been  furnished.^  Statements  containing  a 
mere  designation  of  the  last  item,^*^  or  an  averment  as  to  so 


4  Maine. — Wescott  v.  Bunker, 
83  Me.   499,   22  Atl.   388. 

Maryland. — Maryland  Brick  Co. 
V.  Dunkerly,  85  Md.  199,  36  Atl. 
761;  Gunther  v.  Bennett,  72  Md. 
384,  19  Atl.  1048. 

Minnesota. — Knight  v.  Norris, 
13  Minn.  473. 

Pennsylvania. — Brown  v.  Mey- 
ers, 145  Pa.  St.  17,  23  Atl.  254,  29 
W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  393. 

Washington. — Spears  v.  Law- 
rence, 10  Wash.  368,  38  Pac.  1049, 
45  Am.  St.  789.  A  notice  filed  by 
a  subcontractor  stated  that  the 
labor  performed  and  materials 
furnished  were  "plumbing,  tin- 
ning, furnaces  and  ranges,  as  per 
contract,  to  the  amount  of  $2,560, 
and  additional  labor  to  the  sum 
of  $77,  making  in  all  $2,637,  upon 
account  of  which  there  has  been 
paid  $850,  and  leaving  a  balance 
due  therefor  for  $1,787,"  suffi- 
ciently states  the  labor  performed 
and  the  materials  furnished  and 
the  agreed  price,  or  value  there- 
of. Clarke  v.  Heylman,  80  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  572;  80  N.  Y.  Supp. 
794. 


5  Steininger  v.  Raeman,  28  Mo. 
App.  594. 

0  Sickman  v.  Wollett,  31  Colo. 
58,  71  Pac.  1107. 

7  Benore  v.  Leonard,  6  Lack. 
Leg.  N.  (Pa.)  198;  McClain  v. 
Hutton,  131  Cal.  132,  61  Pac.  273, 
63  Pac.  182,  622;  Maynard  v.  Ivey, 
21  Nev.  241,  29  Pac.  1090. 

8  Pue  v.  Hetzell,  16  Md.  539. 

9  Lewin  v.  Whittenton  Mills,  13 
Gray  (Mass.)  100.  Plaintiff  per- 
formed part  of  certain  work  con- 
tracted for,  and,  having  aban- 
doned the  contract  on  account  of 
defendant's  default,  filed  a  lien 
for  the  work  done,  stating  "that 
all  the  work  and  materials  for 
which  the  claim  is  made  has  been 
actually  performed  or  furnished." 
is  a  sufficient  compliance  with 
the  statute  requiring  that  the  no- 
tice of  lien  shall  contain  a  state- 
ment of  the  work,  performed  and 
unperformed.  Bulkley  v.  Kim- 
ball, 46  N.  Y.  St.  543,  19  N.  Y. 
Supp.   672. 

10  Lynch  v.  Feigle,  11  Phila. 
(Pa.)   247,  33  Leg.  Int.    (Pa.)    408. 


287 


CLAIM DESCRIPTION    OF    MATERIAL. 


[§109 


many  feet  of  lumber,  "third  common, "^^  or  materials  fur- 
nished, on  2nd,  3rd.  4th,  and  5th  of  February,  1847, ^^  or  "an 
excavation  for  a  barn  hereinafter  described,"  and  no  further 
description  is  given,  have  been  held  to  be  insufficient.^^  Under 
the  Pennsylvania  statute  a  statement  must  show  whether  the 
work  was  done  on  a  repair,^'*  alteration, ^^  or  construction  of  a 
new  building.i*^  A  statement  that  the  party  agreed  to  fur- 
nish certain  windows  and  doors, ^^  or  a  bill  of  merchandise,^^ 
or  lumber  for  a  certain  hotel, ^^  or  "certain  goods,  wares  and 
merchandise, "2"^  or  that  goods  are  "to  be  furnished  or  are  fur- 
nished"' being  in  the  alternative,-^  or  in  which  it  is  merely 
stated  that  labor  was  performed  and  the  agreed  price  averred 
as  being  partly  oral  and  partly  written.22  or  for  labor  per- 
formed and  materials  as  per  contract,  where  contract  is  not 
stated,23  or  which  fails  to  definitely  set  forth  the  date  or  kind 
of  material,24  or  designates  the  material  as  "Red"  and  "Hard" 
without  further  description,^^  are  held  to  be  insufficient  de- 


11  Ferguson  v.  Vollum,  1 
Phila.    (Pa.)    181. 

12  Heron  v.  Robinson,  2  Pars. 
Eq.  Cas.   (Pa.)   248. 

13  McNamee  v.  Hilderburn,  9 
Pa.  Co.  Ct.  267. 

1-1  Wharton  v.  Real-Estate  Inv. 
Co.  180  Pa.  St.  168,  36  AtL  725, 
57  Am.  St.  629,  40  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.) 

15  Morrison  v.  Henderson,  126 
Pa.  St.  216,  17  Atl.  599,  24  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)    38. 

16  Wetmore's  Appeal  91  Pa.  St. 
276. 

17  Tacoma  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Wolff,  5  Wash.  264,  31  Pac.  753, 
32  Pac.  462. 

1*^  Fairhaven   Land    Co.   v.   Jor- 
dan, 5  Wash.  729,  32  Pac.  729. 
19  United    States     Savings,    &c. 


Co.  V.  Jones,  9  Wash.  434,  37  Pac. 
666. 

20  Bolster  v.  Stocks,  13  Wash. 
460,  43  Pac.  532,  534,  1099. 

21  New  Jersey  Steel  &c.  Co.  v. 
Robinson,  85  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  512, 
83  N.  Y.  Supp.  450. 

22  Toop  V.  Smith,  87  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  241,  84  N.  Y.  Supp.  326. 

23  Withrow  Lumber  Co.  v.  Glas- 
gow Inv.  Co.,  101  Fed.  863,  42  C. 
C.  A.   61. 

2-i  Wolfe  V.  Keeley,  9  Pa.  Dist. 
515. 

25  Dwyer  Brick  Works  v.  Flan- 
agan, 87  Mo.  App.  340. 

Instances. — A  notice  does  not 
state  the  nature  and  amount  of 
labor  and  materials  furnished 
where  it  merely  recites:  "Labor 
and     materials     furnished     under 


109] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


288 


scriptions.     A  mere  discrepancy,^'^  or  inclusion  of  non-lienable 
items,2"   unless  done  with  fraudulent  intent,  will  not  invali- 


written  contracts  during  the 
months  of  May,  June,  July,  Aug- 
ust, and  September,  1892,  and  to 
be  hereafter  furnished  to  com- 
plete the  building,  the  sum  of 
eighty-five  hundred  dollars  ($8.- 
500)  is  due,"  and  "the  sum  of  five 
hundred  dollars  is  due  for  extra 
work  furnished  and  materials 
supplied  under  a  verbal  agree- 
ment during  the  same  period." 
McKinney  v.  White,  162  N.  Y.  601, 
57  N.  E.  1116.  Under  Laws  1897, 
p.  518,  c.  418,  §  9,  providing  that 
a  notice  of  mechanic's  lien  shall 
state  the  labor  performed  or  to 
be  performed,  or  materials  fur- 
nished or  to  be  furnished,  and 
the  agreed  price  and  value  there- 
of, and  the  amount  unpaid  for 
such  labor  or  materials,  a  state- 
ment in  a  notice  of  mechanic's 
lien  that  "the  labor  performed 
and  the  materials  furnished  and 
to  be  furnished  consists  of  wains- 
coting," etc.,  and  the  agreed 
price,  "less  the  amount  allowed 
for  material,"  and  that  the  amount 
unpaid  "for  such  labor  (or)  (and) 
material  is"  a  certain  sum,  cre- 
ates no  lien,  as  it  cannot  be  deter- 
mined whether  the  claim  is  for 
labor  performed  and  material 
furnished,  or  for  labor  to  be  per- 
formed and  materials  to  be  fur- 
nished. Bossert  v.  Happel,  40 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  569,  82  N.  Y.  Supp. 
872.  Where  materials  furnished 
by  a  mechanic's  lien  claimant 
was  furnished  partly  for,  and 
partly    used    for,    sidewalks,    and 


claimants  fail  to  show  what  por- 
tion went  for  sidewalks,  and  what 
portion  for  other  purposes,  the 
claim  is  wholly  bad,  since  it  can- 
not be  determined  what  portion  of 
it  is  valid.  Bradley  Co.  v.  Gag- 
han,  208  Pa.  St.  511,  57  Atl.  985; 
Endy  v.  Ogrydziak,  10  Kulp  (Pa.) 
102. 

Contract  eutiretj-.  —  Code  Va. 
1SS7,  §  2476,  provides  that,  to  per- 
fect a  lien,  a  contractor  must  file 
"an  account  showing  the  amount 
and  character  of  the  work  done 
or  materials  furnished,  the  prices 
charged  therefor,  the  payments 
made,  if  any,  and  the  balance 
due."  An  account  for  $12,000, 
for  "labor  performed  and  mater- 
ials furnished"  between  certain 
dates,  in  the  construction  of  a 
certain  building  "as  per  contract," 
was  insufficient  to  create  a  lien, 
where  the  erection  of  the  building 
was  contracted  for  as  an  entirety, 
and  the  contract  price  was  $17,- 
945.  Breed  v.  Glasgow  Inv.  Co., 
92  Fed.  760. 

2'5  Kasper  v.  St.  Louis  Terminal 
R.  Co.,  101  Mo.  App.  323,  74  S.  W. 
145;  Ogden  v.  Alexander,  140  N. 
Y.  356,  35  N.  E.  638;  Buess  v. 
Paul  B.  Pugh  &  Co.,  46  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  414,  92  N.  Y.  Supp.  359; 
Francis  v.  Wernwag,  12  Montg. 
Co.  Law  Rep'r,  104,  2  Lack.  Leg. 
N.  (Pa.)  164. 

-~  Palmer  v.  McGinness,  127 
Iowa  118,  102  N.  W.  802;  Wescott 
V.  Bunker,  83  Me.  499,  22  Atl.  388; 
Title    Guarantee    &    Trust   Co.    v. 


289 


CLAIM AVERMENT  OF   CONTRACT. 


[§110 


date  the  lien.^s  Extra  work,  ^9  and  repairs  during  process  of 
construction,  may  be  included  in  the  statement  with  the  re- 
mainder furnished.^*^ 

§  110.  Claim  or  statement — Averment  of  contract  or  con- 
sent of  owner. — The  statement  must  in  some  manner,^  show 
that  the  material  was  furnished  or  work  done  by  the  agree- 
ment or  consent  of  the  owner;  if  it  does  not,  it  is  fatally  de- 
fective.2  But  the  contract  need  not  be  stated,  verbatim,^  nor 
with  greater  fullness  than  is  required  in  a  pleading.'*  The 
statement  should  neither  set  out  matters  which  properly  be- 


Wrenn,   35    Ore.   62,   56   Pac.   271, 
76  Am.  St.  454. 

28  Close  V.  Clark,  16  Daly  (N. 
Y.)    91,  9  N.  Y.  Supp.  538. 

29  Brown  v.  Kolb,  8  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.    413,    43    W.    N.    C.    (Pa.)    26; 

30  Gary  Hardware  Co.  v.  McCar- 
ty,  10  Colo.  App.  200,  50  Pac.  744. 

1  The  docket  kept  by  the  clerk, 
will  not  dispense  with  a  state- 
ment showing  the  amount  of  each 
particular  kind  of  mason  work 
done  under  a  contract  fixing  a  dis- 
tinct price  for  each  kind.  Ehdin 
V.  Murphy,  170  111.  399,  48  N.  E. 
956.  A  notice  that  defendant  and 
others  were  the  original  con- 
tractors, and  had  a  contract  to 
construct  a  building  for  H.,  suffi- 
ciently states  that  the  contract 
was  made  with  H.  Curtis  v.  Ses- 
tanovich,  26  Ore.  107,  37  Pac.  67; 
Moritz  V.  Splitt,  55  Wis.  441,  13  N. 
W.  555.  See  Dec  &  Am.  Dig  tit. 
Mechanics'  Liens  §  140. 

2  See  §§23,  26. 

Minnesota. — Anderson  v.  Knud- 
sen,  33  Min.  172,  22  N.  W.  302; 
Keller  v.  Houlihan,  32  Minn.  486, 
21  N.  W.  729 ;  Rugg  v.  Hoover,  28 
Minn.  404,  10  N..W.  473;  O'Neil  v. 

19 


St.  Olaf's  School,  26  Minn.  329, 
4  N.  W.  47. 

Oregon. — Cross  v.  Tscharnig, 
27  Ore.  49,  39  Pac.  540. 

PennsylTania. — Fenner  v.  Real 
Estate  Trust  Co.  13  Pa.  Dist.  47; 
29  Co.  Ct.  (Pa.)  329.  An  aver- 
ment in  a  petition  to  perfect  a 
mechanic's  lien,  under  Rev.  St. 
Ohio  3184,  stating  "that  under  a 
certain  verbal  contract  with  the 
said  principal  contractor  (who  at 
the  time  of  ordering  said  mater- 
ials was  an  agent  and  contractor 
of  said  owner),"  is  insufficient  to 
satisfy  the  requirements  of  the 
statute  which  provide  that  such 
contract  must  be  entered  into  by 
the  owner  of  his  "authorized" 
agent.  McCune  v.  Snider,  9  Ohio 
Cir.  Dec.  572.  A  mere  allegation 
that  plaintiffs  erected  the  struc- 
ture at  the  instance  of  one  who 
was  in  possession  of  the  land 
under  a  contract  to  purchase 
witli  the  owners  is  insufficient. 
Russell  V.  Hayner,  130  Fed.  90. 

3  Hurlbert  v.  New  Ulm  Basket- 
Works,  47  Minn.  81,  49  N.  W.  521. 

4  Jewell  V.  McKay,  82  Cal.  144, 
23  Pac.  139. 


§110] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO   PERFECT  LIEN. 


290 


long  in  the  pleading,^  nor  implications  of  law.^  If  the  statute 
prescribes  a  form  and  the  form  does  not  provide  for  setting 
out  the  contractual  relation,  it  is  sufficient  to  follow  the  formJ 
In  states  where  the  common  law  disabilities  of  married  women 
have  not  been  removed,  statements  will  be  required  to  show 
how  the  party  if  a  married  woman  is  to  be  charged.^  It  is  not 
necessary  to  state  that  the  contract  has  been  performed,  unless 
the  right  to  a  lien  rests  upon  that  fact.^  Unless  the  statute  re- 
quires exact  statements, ^^  unintentional  mis-statements,  where 
no  one  is  misled  thereby,  will  not  avoid  the  lien.^^  If  extra 
work  or  materials  are  furnished,  the  statement  should  contain 


5  Burkitt  V.  Harper,  79  N.  Y. 
273;  Osborn  v.  Logus,  28  Ore. 
302,  37  Pac.  456,  38  Pac.  190,  42 
Pac.  997. 

G  Jewell  V.  McKay,  82  Cal.  144, 
23  Pac.  139;  Hydraulic  Press 
Brick  Co.  v.  McTaggart,  76  Mo. 
App.  347;  Wagner  v.  Manbeck,  18 
Pa.  Co.  Ct.  471. 

"  Seattle  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Sweeney,  33  Wash.  691,  74  Pac. 
1001. 

s  A  mechanic's  lien  against  a 
married  woman  must  show  on  its 
face  that  she  is  a  married  wo- 
man; that  the  work  or  materials 
were  necessary  for  the  improve- 
ment or  repair  of  her  separate  es- 
tate, and  were  in  fact  so  applied; 
and  that  the  erection  or  repair 
of  the  building  took  place  with 
her  consent  or  authority,  or  at 
her  request.  Wolfe  v.  Oxnard, 
152  Pa.  St.  623,  25  Atl.  806;  Allen 
V.  Oxnard.  152  Pa.  St.  621,  25  Atl. 
568;  Dearie  v.  Martin,  78  Pa.  St. 
55. 

?few  York. — Hauptman  v.  Cat- 
lin,  20  N.  Y.  247. 


PennsylTania.  —  Kelly  v.  Mc- 
Gehee,  137  Pa.  St.  443,  20  Atl.  623, 
26  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  493;  Loomis  v. 
Fry,  91  Pa.  St.  396;  Lloyd  v. 
Hibbs,  81  Pa.  St.  306;  Duck  v. 
O'Rourke,  19  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  497; 
Flinn  v.  Graff,  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  (Pa.) 
533;  Shannon  v.  Broadbent.  2 
Pa.  Dist.  220.  So  it  was  held  that 
a  lien  setting  forth  a  joint  con- 
tract by  a  married  woman  and 
her  husband,  was  void.  Davis  v. 
Nary,  2  Leg.  Rec.   (Pa.)   326. 

9  Jewell  V.  McKay,  82  Cal.  144, 
23  Pac.  139;  Harmon  v.  Ashmead, 
68  Cal.  321,  9  Pac.  183;  Ford  v. 
Wilson,  85  Ga.  109,  11  S.  E.  559. 

If'  Xew  York. — Ogden  v.  Alex- 
ander, 140  N.  Y.  356,  35  N.  B. 
638;  Foster  v.  Schneider,  50  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  151,  2  N.  Y.  Supp.  875; 
Mull  V.  Jones,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  359, 
45  N.  Y.  St.  643;  Brandt  v.  Verdon, 
18  X.  Y.  Supp.  119,  44  N.  Y.  St. 
885. 

Federal.— In  re  Emslie,  102  Fed. 
291,  42  C.  C.   A.   350. 

11  Ringle  v.  Wallis  Iron  Works, 
149  N.  Y.  439,  44  N.  E..  175. 


291 


CLAIM TERMS  OF  CONTRACT. 


Ill 


the  same  averments  in  reference  to  such  work  and  materials 
as  is  required  for  materials  and  labor  furnished  under  the 
principal  contract. ^2  Where  the  contract  provides  that  extras 
shall  be  furnished  at  a  certain  price,  though  they  may  be  in- 
cluded in  the  statement  for  materials  furnished  under  the  prin- 
cipal contract,  yet  the  items  should  be  separately  specified. ^^ 
As  before  mentioned,  it  is  not  ordinarily  necessary  to  set  out 
the  contract  verbatim  or  annex  the  same  to  the  statement, ^^ 
unless  the  statute  so  provides,  in  which  event  the  statement 
will  be  invalid,  if  it  does  not  follow  the  statute.^^ 

§  111.  Claim  or  statement — terms  of  contract. — Just  how 
much  of  the  terms  of  the  contract  must  be  set  out  in  the  state- 
ment, of  necessity  depends  largely  upon  the  wording  of  the 
statute.     The  statement  must,  however,  in  all  cases  show  that 


12  Hayes  v.  Hammond,  162  111. 
133,  44  N.  E.  422;  Knelly  v.  Hor- 
wath,  208  Pa.  487,  57  Atl.  957. 

13  Bruns  v.  Braun,  35  Mo.  App. 
337;  Smith  v.  Gilmore,  34  W.  N. 
C.  (Pa.)  128.  In  a  notice  claim- 
ing a  mechanic's  lien  for  work 
under  a  contract  and  for  extra 
work,  the  lienor,  after  particularly 
describing  the  work  under  the  con- 
tract, stated  that  he  performed 
certain  extra  work  in  and 
about  the  building  and  premises 
aforesaid,  and  furnished  certain 
materials  therefor,  of  the  reason- 
able value.  Held,  that  this  suffi- 
ciently specified  the  nature  of  the 
extra  work,  as  required  by  the 
lien  law.  Hunter  v.  Walter,  58 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  607,  12  N.  Y.  Supp. 
60.  Where  principal  contract  is 
not  recorded  etc.;  Morris  v. 
Wilson,  97  Cal.  644,  32  Pac.  801. 

i4Garlichs  v.  Donnelly,  42  Neb. 
57,  60  N.  W.  323;    Pool  v.  Wede- 


meyer,  56  Tex.  287;  Barnacle  v. 
Henderson,  42  Neb.  169,  60  N.  W. 
382. 

15  Third  persons  taking  place 
of  a  contractor  under  a  written 
contract,  does  not  operate  under 
a  written  contract  as  to  material 
furnished  the  contractor  prior  to 
the  change.  Abbott  v.  Nash,  35 
Minn.  451,  29  N.  W.  65.  The  sub- 
mission of  a  written  bid  and  oral 
acceptance,  is  not  a  written  con- 
tract. Specht  V.  Stevens,  46  Neb. 
874,  65  N.  W.  879.  Where  in  a 
building  contract  plans  and  speci- 
fications are  referred  to  as  part  of 
the  contract,  a  lien  filed  under 
the  contract  and  not  containing 
a  copy  of  the  plans  and  specifi- 
cations, is  defective  under  Penn- 
sylvania Act  June  4,  1901,  and 
will  be  stricken  off.  Knelly 
V.  Horwath,  27  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  545 
affd.  208  Pa.  St.  487. 


Ill] 


PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


292 


there  was  a  contract,  express  or  implied,  that  it  has  been  per- 
formed,^ and  there  is  an  indebtedness.^  In  this  respect  a  sub- 
stantial compliance  is  all  that  is  required.^  Thus  a  statement 
that  it  was  agreed  that  the  price  on  all  materials  should  be  due 
on  delivery  was  held  sufficient  as  to  time,"*  where  the  statute 
did  not  expressly  require  a  statement  as  to  time.^  So  the 
statement  was  held  sufficient  where  it  averred  the  terms  of  the 
payment  as  "cash  on  completion  of  contract,"^  and  likewise 
where  the  averment  gave  the  time  as  "about  July  2d,"  when 
it  was  in  fact  June  29th,'^  or  "June  30th,"  when  it  should  have 
been  "June  28th,"  no  one  being  misled.^  A  statutory  require- 
ment that  the  statement  must  set  forth  the  entire  price  of  the 


1  Pacific  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Fisher,  109  Cal.  566,  42  Pac.  154; 
Schroth  V.  Black,  50  111.  App.  16S; 
Springer  Land  Assn.  v.  Ford,  168 
U.  S.  513,  42  L.  ed.  562,  18  Sup. 
Ct.  170;  American  Car  &  Foundry 
Co.  V.  Alexandria  Water  Co.,  215 
Pa.  520,  64  Atl.  683.  See  Dec.  & 
Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  § 
142. 

2  McClain  v.  Hutton,  131  Cal. 
132,  61  Pac.  273,  63  Pac.  182,  622. 

3Felgenhauer  v.  Haas,  123  App. 
Div.  (N.  y.)  75,  108  N.  Y.  S.  476; 
McClain  v.  Hutton,  131  Cal.  132, 
61  Pac.  273,  63  Pac.  182,  622; 
Snell  V.  Payne,  115  Cal.  218,  46 
Pac.  1069;  Mras  v.  Duff,  11  Wash. 
36,  39  Pac.  267.  Cal.  Code  Civ. 
Proc.  1187,  provides  that  notice  of 
a  claim  for  a  mechanic's  lien  shall 
contain  a  statement  of  the  "terms, 
time  given,  and  conditions  of  the 
contract."  A  claimant  to  such  a 
lien  for  the  construction  of  a 
house  filed  his  notice,  stating 
"that  such  house  was  to  be 
erected,  to  consist  of  five  rooms, 
and  to  be  finished  in  a  woi'kman- 


like  manner,  for  the  agreed  price 
of  $740."  Held,  a  sufficient  com- 
pliance with  the  Code  to  entitle 
claimant  to  his  lien.  McGinty  v. 
Morgan,  122  Cal.  103,  54  Pac.  392. 

A  notice  of  claim  for  a  me- 
chanic's lien  which  states  that  un- 
der the  contract  the  claimant  was 
"to  furnish  the  lumber,  sash, 
doors,  etc.,"  for  a  certain  build- 
ing, is  sufficiently  specific.  Bol- 
ster V.  Stocks,  13  Wash.  460,  43 
Pac.  532,  534,  1099.  Immaterial 
facts  need  not  be  stated.  Martin 
V.  Flahive,  112  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
347,  98  N.  Y.  S.  577;  American 
Car  &  Foundry  Co.  v.  Alexandria 
Water  Co.,  215  Pa.  520,  64  Atl. 
683. 

■1  Cohn  V.  Wright,  89  Cal.  86,  26 
Pac.  643. 

5Reed  v.  Norton,  90  Cal.  590,  26 
Pac.  767,  27  Pac.  426;  Hills  v. 
Ohlig,  63  Cal.  104. 

GKelley  v.  Plover,  103  Cal.  35, 
36  Pac.  1020. 

"Hayes  v.  Hammond,  162  111. 
133,  44  N.  E.  422. 

SMitchell  v.  Penfield,  8  Kan.  186. 


293 


CLAIM TERMS  OF  CONTRACT, 


[§111 


contract  must  be  followed,  although  an  action  would  lie  on  a 
quantum  meruit.^  A  failure  to  comply  with  a  plain  statutory- 
requirement  as  to  matters  to  be  included  in  the  statement  is 
fatal. ^^  If  there  are  no  special  terms  or  conditions  in  the  con- 
tract then  a  general  averment  will  be  sufficient,  and  no  special 
matters  need  be  set  out.^^  Where  the  contract  is  filed  with 
the  statement  and  made  a  part  of  it,  then  no  averment  of  time 


sunder  Pub.  St.  Mass.  c.  191,  § 
6,  which  required  that  a  person 
claiming  a  lien  for  labor  shall  file 
a  statement  of  the  amount  due 
him,  and,  "if  the  lien  is  claimed 
only  for  labor,  performed  or  fur- 
nished under  an  entire  contract, 
which  includes  both  labor  and  ma- 
terials at  an  entire  price,  the  con- 
trict  price,  the  number  of  days  of 
labor  performed  or  furnished,  and 
the  value  of  the  same,  shall  also 
be  stated"  a  statement  which 
avers  that  the  labor  was  furnished 
under  a  contract,  "the  contract 
price  being  three  dollars  per 
square  for  excavation,  and  two 
dollars  and  fifty  cents  per  perch 
for  laying  the  stone,  cement  to  be 
furnished  by  me,"  and  which 
states  the  number  of  days'  labor 
furnished,  and  the  value  of  the  la- 
bor, is  insufficient,  as  it  does  not 
show  the  contract  price  of  the  en- 
tire work.  Hurley  v.  Lally,  151 
Mass.  129,  23  N.  E.  834;  Gogin  v. 
Walsh,  124  Mass.  516. 

loprench  v.  Hussey,  159  Mass. 
206,  34  N.  E.  362;  Pierce  v.  Cabot, 
159  Mass.  202,  34  N.  E.  362;  Du- 
gan  V.  Brophy,  55  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  121.  Did  not  set  out  plans 
when  statute  required.  Pierce  v. 
Birkholm,    115    Cal.    657,    47    Pac. 


681.  A  claim  which  fails  to  set 
forth  a  copy  of  the  contract,  if  in 
writing,  or  a  statement  of  its 
terms  and  conditions,  if  verbal, 
and  the  kind  of  materials  fui'- 
nished,  whether  the  claim  is 
against  the  fee  or  a  lesser  estate, 
and  the  sum  claimed  to  be  still 
due  and  whether  claimant  has  any 
note  or  other  security  for  his 
claim,  is  so  informal  and  defec- 
tive, under  the  Act  of  June  4, 
1901,  that  it  will  be  stricken  off, 
unless  amended.  Billmeyer  &c.,  Co. 
V.  Brubaker,  17  York,  (Pa.)  113, 
115.  Terms,  time  given  and 
conditions.  Morrison  v.  Willard, 
17  Utah  306,  53  Pac.  832,  70  Am. 
St.  784;  Gates  v.  Brown,  1  Wash. 
St.  470,  25  Pac.  914. 

iiWatkins  v.  Bugge,  56  Neb. 
615,  77  N.  W.  83;  Lonkey  v.  Wells, 
16  Nev.  271;  Fairhaven  Land  Co. 
V.  Jordan,  5  Wash.  729,  32  Pac. 
729.  A  mechanic's  lien  claim, 
which  states  in  general  terms  that 
the  conditions  of  the  contract 
were  the  furnishing  of  materials 
and  labor  by  plaintiff,  and  the 
payment  of  a  specified  sum  by  the 
owner  on  completion  and  accept- 
ance of  the  building,  is  sufficient. 
Branham  v.  Nye,  9  Colo.  App.  19, 
47   Pac.   402. 


Ill 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


294 


need  be  made  if  the  contract  covers  the  matter.^^  jf  ^he  con- 
tract is  required  to  be  recorded,  it  may  be  referred  to.^^  The 
mere  fact  that  the  owner  has  a  copy  of  the  contract  will  not 
do  away  with  the  necessity  of  making  the  necessary  state- 
ments.^* The  terms  of  the  contract  must  not  be  stated  in  the 
alternative. ^5  Under  some  statutes  it  is  enough  to  set  out  a 
copy  if  the  contract  is  in  writing;  if  verbal  that  fact  should  be 
stated  and  its  substance  given. ^^  The  proof  on  the  trial  must 
accord  w'ith  the  averments  in  the  statement,  or  the  variance 
will  be  fatal. 1^  As  a  general  rule,  subcontractors  are  not  re- 
quired to  set  out  the  terms  of  the  contract  between  the  owner 
and  the  principal  contractor.^^  Where  a  contract  is  referred 
to  in  the  statement  it  is  presumed  to  be  the  contract  between 
the  owner  and  principal  contractor  in  the  absence  of  any  aver- 
ment to  the  contrary. 1^ 


12  Ford  V.  Springer  Land  Assn., 
8  N.  Mex.  37,  41  Pac.  541.  Bill  of 
particulars.  Washington  Mill  Co. 
V.  Craig,  7  Wash.  556,  35  Pac.  413. 

issan  Diego  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Wooldredge,  90  Cal.  574,  27  Pac. 
431;  O'Brien  v.  Logan,  9  Pa.  St. 
97. 

1-1  United  States  Savings,  &c., 
Co.  V.  Jones,  9  Wash.  434,  37  Pac. 
666. 

i^Villaume  v.  Kirchner,  85  N.  Y. 
Supp.  377. 

i6Benore  v.  Leonard,  6  Lack. 
Leg.  N.  (Pa.)  198;  Westmoreland 
Guarantee  Bldg.  &  Loan  Assn.  v. 
Conner,  216  Pa.  543,  65  Atl.  1089. 

i^Baker  v.  Winter.  15  Md.  1. 
Plaintiff's  notice  of  lien  set  out 
that  his  agreement  with  defendant 
N.  was  "that  he  was  to  be  paid 
for  said  labor  done  and  furnished 
at  what  it  was  reasonably  worth, 
to    be    paid    for   when    the    work 


ceased."  On  the  trial  plaintiff 
testified:  "My  contract  was  to  fur- 
nish all  the  material  and  do  all 
the  painting  for  $250."  Held,  that 
the  variance  between  the  actual 
contract  and  the  statement  in  the 
notice  was  fatal.  Reed  v.  Norton, 
90  Cal.  590,  26  Pac.  767,  27  Pac. 
426.  Where  the  specification 
claims  a  lien  under  a  contract 
to  paint  a  house  for  $180,  and  the 
proof  shows  a  contract  to  paint 
a  house  and  the  fence  on  the  lot 
for  $180,  there  is  no  lien.  Jones 
V.  Kalker,  1  Sheld.  (N.  Y.  Super.) 
350. 

isChicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  New- 
comb,  19  Colo.  App.  265,  74  Pac. 
786;  Harris  v.  Harris,  9  Colo.  App. 
211,  47  Pac.  841;  Brubaker  v.  Ben- 
nett, 19  Utah  401,  57  Pac.  170. 

19 Dunns  v.  Cutter,  19  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  24,  6  Pa.  Dist.  666.  28  Pittsb. 
Leg.  J.  (Pa.)  189. 


295 


CLAIM NAME  OF   EMPLOYER. 


[§  112 


§  112.    Claim  or  statement — name  of  employer  or  contractor. 

— As  a  general  rule  it  may  be  stated  that  it  is  necessary  that, 
the  lien  statement  shall  contain  the  name  of  the  employer 
where  it  is  sought  to  have  a  direct  lien,  and  the  name  of  the 
contractor  where  a  subcontractor  seeks  to  enforce  his  lien 
rightg.i  In  some  instances  it  has  been  held  that  a  failure  to 
make  designation  is  not  fatal  unless  objection  is  made  before 
trial  is  had  to  enforce  the  lien.^  If  the  giving  of  such  name 
will  add  no  additional  information,  its  omission  will  be  ex- 
cused.'* If  the  contract  is  entered  into  by  an  agent,  it  will  not 
be  necessarily  fatal  to  omit  the  name  of  the  agent.^  If  the 
lien  statement  is  so  indefinite  that  it  cannot  be  determined 
who  is  to  be  charged,  it  will  be  void.*'  But  even  if  the  name 
is  not  rightly  given,  and  the  party  to  be  charged  knows  of  his  lia- 


iCalifornia.  —  Phelps  v.  Max- 
well's Creek  Gold  Min.  Co.,  49 
Cal.  336. 

Ontario. — Wallis  v.  Skain,  21 
Ont.  R.  532. 

Oregon. — Dillon  v.  Hart,  25  Ore. 
49,  34  Pac.  817. 

Pennsylvania. — Dagg  v.  Thomas, 
31  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  (N.  S.)  210; 
Whitman  v.  Wilkesbarre  Deposit 
etc.  Bank,  9  Kulp   (Pa.)   522. 

Wisconsin. — Scott  v.  Christian- 
son,  110  Wis.  164,  85  N.  W.  653; 
Bertheolet  v.  Parker,  43  Wis.  551. 

Under  Code  Civ.  Proc.  (Cal.) 
1184,  providing  that  "where  a  con- 
tract for  labor  for  which  a  me- 
chanic's lien  is  claimed  is  not 
filed,  the  labor  should  be  deemed 
to  have  been  performed  at  the  per- 
sonal instance  of  the  owner,"  a 
lien  was  not  objectionable  be- 
cause it  named  the  owner  as  the 
person  by  whom  the  claimant  was 
employed  instead  of  the  contrac- 
tor.    McClain  v.  Hutton,  131  Cal. 


132,  63  Pac.  182.  Especially  is 
this  true,  where  the  lien  state- 
ment is  not  made  to  secure  a 
principal  contractor.  Keller  v. 
Houlihan,  32  Minn.  486,  21  N.  W. 
729;  McCay's  Appeal,  37  Pa.  St. 
125.  Where  the  contract  has  been 
changed.  Murta  v.  Stephenson,  12 
Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  653.  Must  show  to 
whom  material  furnished.  Barton 
v.  Rose,  84  Ore.  235,  85  Pac.  1009. 
See  Dec  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,  §  141. 

2Darrow  v.  Morgan,  65  N.  Y. 
333. 

^Knabb's  Appeal,  10  Pa.  St.  186, 
51  Am.  Dec.  472. 

^Stevenson  v.  Dick,  13  Phila. 
(Pa.)  132.  Made  with  husband  as 
agent,  not  necessary  to  name  him. 
Ryman  v.  Wolf,  6  Kulp.  (Pa.)  325; 
Fulton  V.  Parlett  &  Parlett,  104 
Md.  62,  64  Atl.  58. 

*>Bradley,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pacheteau, 
71  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  148,  75  N.  Y. 
Supp.  531. 


§112] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


296 


bility,  and  no  one  is  misled  thereby,  the  statement  will  be 
sufficient.'^  Where  the  statement  has  it  "M.  &  Co.,"  when  it 
should  be  "M.,"^  or  gives  the  name  of  three  joint  contractors,^ 
or  "W.  F.  H.,"  when  it  should  be  "F.  W.  H.,"io  or  H.  &  N.,ii 
or  the  owner  and  his  wife.^-  or  of  a  "firm"  when  one  member 
makes  the  contract, ^^  or  the  name  of  one  partner  in  a  partner- 
ship,^^  or  to  "J.  S.  and  F.  S.,"  when  it  should  be  "J-  S.  and  B. 
F.  S.,"i5  or  "J.  W.  H.  &  Bro.,"'  when  it  should  be  "C.  N.  H.  & 
Co.,"^*^  or  gives  the  name  of  the  foreman  or  superintendent 
who  actually  did  the  employing,  the  statements  have  been  held 
to  be  not  fatally  erroneous. ^^  If  the  name  of  the  agent  is  given, 
the  statement  should  show  that  he  acts  under  the  authority  of 


TBrosnan  v.  Trulson,  164  Mass. 
410,  41  N.  E.  660;  Brown  v.  Welch, 
5  Hun  (N.  Y.)  582;  Nottingham 
V.  McKendrick,  38  Ore.  495,  63 
Pac.  822;  Sautter  v.  McDonald,  12 
Wash.  27,  40  Pac.  418.  A  duly  re- 
corded notice  of  intention  to  claim 
a  mechanic's  lien,  which  states 
such  intention,  describes  the  prop- 
erty sought  to  be  charged,  and 
states  the  amount  for  which  the 
lien  is  claimed,  and  that  it  is  for 
the  construction  of  heating  appa- 
ratus in  the  building  erected  on 
the  property  described,  is  suffic- 
ient under  Rev.  St.  693,  though  the 
caption  indicates  that  the  contract 
was  made  with  the  trustees  of  the 
corporation  owning  the  building, 
while  it  was  in  fact  made  with 
its  agent.  Phoenix  Iron  Co.  v. 
The  Richmond,  6  Mackey  (D.  C.) 
180.  Under  Hill's  Code  (Ore.),  § 
3673,  requiring  the  claimant  to 
state  the  name  of  the  person  to 
whom  he  furnished  the  materials, 
the  statement  that  claimants  fur- 
nished   brick,    and    that    the    ma- 


terials were  furnished  to  S.,  the 
contractor,  and  were  used  in  the 
building,  is  sufficient.  Curtis  v. 
Sestanovich,  26  Ore.  107,  37  Pac. 
67. 

STibbetts  v.  Moore,  23  Cal.  208. 

9 Davis  V.  Livingston,  29  Cal.  283. 
Contractor  and  subcontractor.  Mc- 
Hugh  V.  Slack,  11  Wash.  370,  39 
Pac.  674. 

10 Jewell  V.  McKay,  82  Cal.  144, 
23   Pac.  139. 

iiReed  v.  Norton,  90  Cal.  590, 
26  Pac.  767,  27  Pac.  426. 

i2Clark  V.  Huey,  12  Ind.  App. 
224,  40  N.  E.  152. 

ispirst  Presbyterian  Church  v. 
Santy,  52  Kan.  462,  34  Pac.  974. 

i4Pell  V.  Baur,  41  N.  Y.  99,  16 
N.  Y.  Supp.  258. 

loSteinman  v.  Strimple,  29  Mo. 
App.   478. 

iGOsborn  v.  Logus,  28  Ore.  302, 
42  Pac.   997. 

I'Hopkins  v.  Jamieson-Dixon 
Mill  Co.,  11  Wash.  308,  39  Pac. 
815. 


297  CLAIM NAME  OF   EMPLOYER.  [§112 

the  owner/*  and  should  show  the  owner's  name,  if  the  ma- 
terial is  furnished  to  the  agent  under  contract  with  the  own- 
er.i^  In  accordance  with  the  principle  that  the  person  charged 
should  be  named  in  the  statement,  if  the  work  is  done  for  a 
lessee,  and  his  interest  is  to  be  charged,  the  lessee's  name 
should  be  given. 2"^'  If  the  name  is  properly  given,  the  fact  that 
the  materials  were  used  by  the  contractor  or  that  credit  was 
originally  given  to  the  owner,  and  not  to  the  contractor,  will 
not  afifect  the  validity  of  the  lien  statement.^i  While  a  state- 
ment need  not  in  terms  state  the  contractual  relation  of  the 
parties,22  yet  this  will  not  excuse  a  failure  to  give  their 
names.2^  And  where  a  contractor  files  the  statement,  it  may 
be  good  provided  he  names  the  parties  with  w^hom  he  made 
the  contract,  even  though  he  omit  to  state  that  his  contractor 
made  a  contract  with  the  owner.  This  will  give  the  owner  all 
the  information  necessary  to  protect  himself.^^  But  elsewhere 
it  is  held  that  a  failure  to  make  a  statement  of  such  contract 


iSFilberl  v.  Davis,  2  Cleve.  Law  Piske  v.  Rogers,   60  N.  Y.  Super. 

Rep.    (Ohio)   265,  4  Ohio  Dec.  496.  Ct.  418,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  191. 

Architect.    Leick  v.  Beers,  28  Ore.  23Davies-Henderson  Lumber  Co. 

483,    43    Pac.    658.      Husband    and  v.  Gottschalk,  81  Cal.  641,  22  Pac. 

wife.     Ward    v.    Black,     7     Phila.  860;  Merriman  v.  Bartlett,  34  Minn. 

(Pa.)    342.  524,    26    N.    W.    728;      Willamette 

i9Allen  V.  Elwert,  29   Ore.  428,  Steam  Mills,  fee,  Co.  v.  McLeod,  27 

44  Pac.  823,  48  Pac.  54.  Ore.  272,  40  Pac.  93;   Rowland  v. 

20Carey  v.  Wintersteen,  60   Pa.  Harmon,  24  Ore.  529,  34  Pac.  357; 

St.    395.      May    not    be    fatal    if  Rankin  v.  Malarkey,  23  Ore.  593, 

omitted.     Shields  v.  Sorg,  129  111.  34  Pac.  816.    A  recital  in  a  notice 

App.     266.       Judgment     affirmed.  of  lien  filed  by  material  men,  that 

Sorg  V.  Crandall,  233  111.  79,  84  N.  the    contractor,    as    agent    of    the 

W.  181.  owner,  ordered  the  material,  suffi- 

2iCIark  V.   Huey,   12   Ind.   App.  ciently  alleges  the  existence  of  the 

224,  36  N.   E.   52.  relation  of  principal  and  agent  be- 

22  Cunningham  v.  Barr,  45  Kan.  tween  the  owner  and  contractor  to 

158,  25  Pac.  583.    A  statement  that  subject   the   building  to   the   lien, 

the    contract    was    made    with    B.  Pairhaven  Land  Co.  v.  Jordan,  5 

as    agent,    when    B.    was    in    fact  Wash.  729,  32  Pac.  729. 

a  sub-contractor  is  not  sufficient.  24Cahill  v.  Ely,  55  Mo.  App.  102. 


§113] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


298 


will  be  fatal. 25  Whatever  the  statutory  requirements  may  be 
they  must  be  complied  with.2<^ 

§  113.     Claim  or  statement — time  of  rendering  services. — 

The  statement  must  show  that  the  services  have  been  rendered 
so  as  to  bring  the  filing-  within  the  time  limit,  but  no  more  is 
required  than  is  demanded  by  a  reasonable  construction  of  the 
statute.^  But  whatever  the  statute  demands  must  be  given, 
and  if  the  dates  of  items  are  required,  it  is  fatal  not  to  set  forth 
such  dates. 2  But  if  the  statute  does  not  require  the  dates  to 
be  given  the  statement  will  be  good  if  it  shows  that  the  work 
was   performed   or   the    materials    furnished   within   the   time 


25  Bertheolet  v.  Parker,  43  Wis. 
551. 

26WasIiington. — Sautter  v.  jNIc- 
donald,  12  Wash.  27,  40  Pac.  418; 
Collins  V.  Snoke,  9  Wash,  566,  38 
Pac.  161;  Heald  v.  Holder,  5 
Wash.  677,  32  Pac.  728;  Tacoma 
Lumber,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Wilson,  8 
Wash.  786,  29  Pac.  829;  Warren  v. 
Quade,  3  Wash.  786,  29  Pac.  827. 

iMouat  Lumber  &  Inv.  Co.  v. 
Freeman,  7  Colo.  App.  152,  42  Pac. 
1040.  Figures  in  a  date  column 
have  a  well-defined  and  universal- 
ly understood  meaning,  both  com- 
mercially and  legally;  and,  where 
the  month  and  the  day  and  the 
year  are  so  represented  in  a  claim 
filed  for  a  mechanic's  lien,  it  will 
be  held  sufficient.  Sorg  v.  Cran- 
dall,  129  111.  App.  255.  Judgment 
affirmed.  Lowden  v.  Sorg,  233  111. 
79,  84  N.  E.  181. 

2Illiiiois. — Campbell  v.  Jacobson, 
145  111.  389,  34  N.  E.  39;  Grace  v. 
Oakland  Bldg.  Assn.,  63  111.  App. 
339;  Fried  v.  Blanchard,  58  111. 
App.  622;  Shields  v.  Sorg,  129  111. 


App.  266,  judgment  affirmed  (1906) 
Sorg  v.  Crandall,  233  111.  79,  84 
N.  E.   ISl. 

Mis'souri. — Cahill  v.  Orphan 
School  of  Christian  Church,  1  Mo. 
App.  Rep'r,  488,  63  Mo.  App.   28. 

>'ew  York. — Mahley  v.  German 
Bank,  174  X.  Y.  499,  67  N.  E. 
117. 

Pennsylvania. — Brown  v.  Kolb, 
8  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  413,  43  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)  26;  Witman  v.  Walker,  9 
Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  183;  Noll  v. 
Swineford,  6  Pa.  St.  187. 

Federal. — In  re  Emslie,  98  Fed. 
716.  The  necessity  of  setting  out 
the  dates  of  furnishing  the  ma- 
terial is  not  satisfied  by  a  state- 
ment that  the  items  were  deliv- 
ered between  April  20,  1893,  and 
July  19,  1893,  nor  by  an  averment 
in  the  affidavit  that  the  demand 
accrued  within  four  months  prior 
to  the  filing  of  the  lien.  Mitchell 
Planing-Mill  Co.  v.  Allison,  71  Mo. 
App.  251;  See  §  116.  See  Dec.  & 
Am.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens,  § 
146. 


299 


CLAIM TIME  OF  RENDERING  SERVICE. 


[§113 


limit.2  Whether  the  statute  requires  dates  to  be  given  or  not, 
the  statement  will  be  void  if  all  its  parts  when  taken  into  con- 
sideration do  not  show  that  the  labor  or  materials  were  fur- 
nished within  the  time  limit. ^  This  matter  must  be  judged 
from  the  statement  itself.  It  cannot  be  enlarged  by  extrinsic 
evidence.*^  Of  course,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  can  be  shown  by 
evidence  on  the  trial  that  the  materials  or  services  were  ac- 
tually furnished  within  the  time  limit,  provided  the  statement 
was  filed  in  time.^  Whether  the  account  is  a  running  one  or 
not  is  a  question  of  fact  which  may  be  determined  by  the  con- 
duct of  the  parties.^  Where  the  contract  is  entire,  it  is  gen- 
erally sufficient  if  the  statement  shows  the  dates  between 
which  the  material  or  labor  was  furnished,'''  even  if  composed 
of  different  items,  provided  all  are  within  the  time  limit.^  If 
non-lienable  items  are  intermingled,  so  that  the  non-lienable 
items  can  not  be  distinguished  from  the  lienable  items,  all  may 


3Kern  v.  Pfaff,  44  Mo.  App.  29; 
Hayden  v.  Wulfing,  19  Mo.  App. 
353;  Noll  v.  Kenneally,  37  Neb. 
879,  56  N.  W.  722;  Baldwin  v. 
Spear  Bros.,  79  Vt.  43,  64  Atl.  235. 

^Illinois. — Richardson  v.  Cen- 
tral Lumber  Co.,  105  111.  App.  358. 

New  Jersey. — Associates  of  Jer- 
sey Co.  V.  Davison,  29  N.  J.  L. 
415. 

Pennsyhania. — Rehrer  v.  Zeig- 
ler,  3  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  258; 
Faulkner  v.  Reilly,  1  Phila.  (Pa.) 
234. 

Texas. — Meyers  v.  Wood,  26 
Tex.  Civ.  App.   591,   65   S.  W.  671. 

West  Virginia. — O'Niel  v.  Tay- 
lor, 59  W.  Va.  370,  53  S.  E.  471. 

4=1  Armstrong  v.  Chisholm,  100 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  440,  91  N.  Y. 
Supp.  693;  Endy  v.  Ogrydziak,  10 
Kulp  (Pa.)  102. 


^Morgan  v.  Taylor,  15  Daly  (N. 
Y.)  304,  5  N.  Y.  Supp.  920;  Jones 
V.  Shawhan,  4  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.) 
257. 

SGrand  Island  Banking  Co.  v. 
Koehler,  57  Neb.  649,  78  N.  W. 
265. 

"Delaware. — ^France  v.  Wools- 
ton,  4  Houst.  (Del.)  557. 

Illinois. — Kendall  v.  Fader,  199 
111.  294,  65  N.  E.  318;  Ehdin  v. 
Murphy,  170  111.  399,  48  N.  E.  956; 
National  Home  Bldg.  &  Loan  Assn. 
V.  McAllister,  64  111.  App.  143. 

Nebraska.  —  Garlichs  •  v.  Don- 
nelly, 42  Neb.  57,  60  N.  W.  323. 

SThe  intention  is  that  it  should 
show  fully  the  account  between 
the  parties.  Mitchell  Planing- 
Mill  Co.  V.  Allison,  138  Mo.  50,  40 
S.  W.  118,  60  Am.  St.  544. 


§  113]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  300 

be  declared  void.^  A  substantial  compliance  with  the  terms  of 
the  statute  as  to  the  rendition  of  the  services  is  generally  re- 
garded as  sufficient. 1^  Thus  statements  have  been  held  suffi- 
cient which  set  out  that  the  materials  were  furnished  between 
September,  1890,  and  Oct.  31,  1890,ii  that  three  carloads  of 
stone  were  delivered  between  August  2nd  and  Sept.  27,  1889, ^^ 
that  the  claim  was  for  brick  work  between  given  dates,^^ 
that  "the  above  items  were  sold  for  $677.65,  and  delivered  be- 
tween July  10,  1888,  and  Oct.  18,  1888,"i4  or  that  "the  contract 
was  made  April  16,  1841,  and  work  done  between  16th  and  29th 
of  August,  1842,"i5  or  within  the  past  six  months, ^^  that  the 
work  was  hauling  stone  from  "June  1,  1894,  to  May  16,  1895,"^'^ 
that  the  materials  were  "furnished  between  April  20  and  July 
19,  and  within  four  months  from  date  of  filing,"^^  and  gen- 
erally that  the  articles  or  labor  were  furnished  between  certain 
dates.i9 

§  114.     Claim  or  statement — sufficiency  as  to   time. — Gen- 
erally the  statement  will  be  sufficient  if  there  is  enough  of  cer- 


9Hughes  V.  Lansing,  34  Ore.  118,  i^Prancis      v.      Wernwag,      12 

55  Pac.  95,  75  Am.  St.  574.  Montg.   Co.   L.    104,   2   Lack.   Leg. 

10  St.    Paul    &c.,   Pressed   Brick  N.   (Pa.)  164. 

Co.  V.   Stout,  45  Minn.  327,  47  N.  iSMitchell    Planing-Mill    Co.    v. 

W.  974;  Flack  v.  Jeffrey,  10  Mani-  Allison,  138  Mo.  50,  40  S.  W.  118, 

toba   514.  60  Am.  St.  544. 

11  Springer    v.     Kroeschell,  161  lo  Moore  v.  Parish,  163  111.  93,45 
111.  358,  43  N.  E.  1084.  N.   E.   573;    Carlson   v.   Anderson, 

isjohnson  v.   Stout,     42     Minn.  66   111.   App.    663.      IVot    sufficient. 

514,  44  N.  W.  534.  Mechanic's    Lien    Act    (Laws    111. 

i3Ittner  v.  Hughes,  133  Mo.  679,  1887,  p.  219),  §  4,  requiring  the  ac- 

34  S.  W.  1110.  count  to  state  the  times  when  the 

i4Noll   V.   Kenneally,     37     Neb.  material   was   furnished,  was   not 

879,  56  N.  W.   722.  complied  with  by  a  statement  that 

iSDriesbach  v.  Keller,  2  Pa.  St.  "work  on  the  aforesaid  buildings 

77.  was  commenced  Jan.  20,  1893,  and 

iCBayer   v.   Reeside,   14   Pa.   St.  completed  Aug.  18,  1893."     Buck- 

167;  Calhoun  v.  Mahon,  14  Pa.  St.  ely  v.  Commercial  Nat.  Bank,  171 

56;   Shaw  v.  Barnes,  5  Pa.  St.  18,  111.  284,  49  N.  E.  617. 
47  Am.  Dec.  399. 


301 


CLAIM SUFFICIENCY  OF  TIME, 


[§114 


tainty  to  show  during  what  period  or  time  the  materials  were 
delivered  or  the  work  done/  bearing  in  mind  that  all  must 
come  within  the  time  limit.^  An  error  that  is  apparent  on  its 
face,  and  not  misleading,^  or  a  variance  in  particular  dates  set 
forth  in  the  claim,'*  if  the  correct  date  can  be  ascertained  from 
the  statement,^  or  even  if  a  small  part  was  delivered  prior  to 
the  time  alleged,  the  statement  will  not  be  defective.^  If  the 
work  is  done  on  different'^  or  distinct  contracts,  the  dates  of 
the  items  furnished  under  each  should  be  set  forth  in  the  state- 
ment.^ If  there  is  but  one  date  given,  it  will  be  presumed 
that  the  work  or  materials  were  furnished  on  that  date.^  And 
if  the  only  date  mentioned  is  that  given  at  the  time  of  the 
statement  that  will  be  the  presumed  date.^*^  If  the  contract  is 
entire,  one  date  will  be  sufficient. ^^  Certainty  to  a  common 
intent  is  all  that  is  required, ^^  when  all  the  parts  of  the  state- 
ment are  considered. ^^  Where  the  only  question  can  be 
whether  the  lien  is  filed  within  a  proper  time,  it  will  be  suffi- 


iSmall  V.  Foley,  8  Colo.  App. 
435,  47  Pac.  64;  Brown  v.  Kolb, 
8  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  413,  43  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)  26;  Stuart  v.  Broome,  59 
Tex.  466.  Ordinary  account,  with 
debits  and  credits,  and  dates. 
Novelty  Iron  Works  v.  Capital 
City  Oatmeal  Co.,  88  Iowa  524,  55 
N.  W.  518.    See  §  94. 

2Pardue  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
52  Neb.  201,  71  N.  W.  1022,  66  Am. 
St.  489. 

3Hillary  v.  Pollock,  13  Pa.  St. 
186. 

4Althen  v.  Tarbox,  48  Minn.  18, 
50  N.  W.  1018,  31  Am.  St.  616; 
Haviland  v.  Pratt,  1  Phila.  (Pa.) 
364.  A  variance  of  a  few  days, 
held  fatal.  Milligan  v.  Hill,  4 
Phila.    (Pa.)    52. 

SMcClintock  v.  Rush,  63  Pa.  St. 
203. 


6Allen  V.  Elwert,  29  Ore.  428,  44 
Pac.  823,  48  Pac.  54. 

"Buckely  v.  Commercial  Nat. 
Bank,  171  111.  284,  49  N.  E.  617. 

sClark  v.  Boarman,  89  Md.  428, 
43  Atl.  926.     See  §  85. 

9Donahoo  v.  Scott,  12  Pa.  St. 
45;  Knabb's  Appeal,  10  Pa.  St. 
186,  51  Am.  Dec.  472. 

lOFried  v.  Blanchard,  58  111. 
App.  622. 

iiEdwards  v.  Derrickson,  4 
Dutch.  N.  J.  L.  39;  Shaffer  v.  Hull, 
2  Clark  (Pa.)  321;  Young  v.  Elli- 
ott, 2  Phila.  (Pa.)  352. 

i2Williamson  v.  New  Jersey 
Southern  R.  Co.,  1  Stew.  N.  J.  Eq. 
277. 

i3Bangs  V.  Berg,  82  Iowa  350, 
48  N.  W.  90. 


114] 


PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN, 


302 


cient  upon  the  determination  of  that  question  if  only  the  date 
of  the  last  item  was  given. ^^  A  false  and  fraudulent  statement 
will  invalidate  the  lien.^^  But  the  failure  to  make  a  proper 
statement,  as  the  failure  to  give  the  date  of  the  year,  no  one 
being  misled,  will  not  affect  its  validity.i*^  It  has  been  held 
that  the  year  is  sufficiently  stated  if  given  at  the  head  of  the 
account,^^  and  if  no  date  is  given,  the  time  intended  will  be 
considered  as  the  date  of  the  filing.^*  It  is  generally  not  nec- 
essary to  state  the  time  of  the  completion  of  the  work,^^  nor 
that  the  debt  is  due  or  the  claim  has  accrued,2o  nor  when  the 


i4Lynch  v.  Feigle,  11  Phila  (Pa.) 
247,  33  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  408;  Ken- 
dall V.  Fader,  99  111.  App.  104.  A 
mechanic's  Hen  claim  alleged  that 
the  work  was  done  and  the  ma- 
terials furnished  "within  the  12 
months  last  past,  and  the  work, 
when  completed,  was  delivered 
by"  the  contractor  to  the  owner 
on  September  21st  last.  Held  that 
the  claim  showed  that  the  work 
was  completed,  and  delivered  on 
September  21st.  Baker  v.  Winter, 
15  Md.   1. 

13  May  P.  &c.,  Brick  Co.  v.  Gen- 
eral Engineering  Co.,  180  111.  535, 
54  N.  E.  638. 

16  Blanchard  v.  Fried,  162  111. 
462,  44  N.  E.  880;  Bruce  v.  Hoose, 
48  Mo.  App.  161;  Cole  v.  Barron, 
8  Mo.  App.  509.  Under  positive 
statutory  enactments  as  to  state- 
ment of  time,  some  courts  have 
held,  that  not  to  make  such  state- 
ment is  fatal.  Rehrer  v.  Zeigler, 
3  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  258;  Reneker 
V.  Hill,  3  Phila.  (Pa.)  110. 

17  Bruce  v.  Hoose,  48  ]\Io.  App. 
161. 

iSMcCllntock  v.  Rush,  63  Pa.  St. 
203. 


19 California.— Slight  v.    Patton, 

96  Cal.  384,  31  Pac.  248. 

Connecticut. — Westland  v.  Good- 
man, 47  Conn.  83;  Cole  v.  Uhl,  46 
Conn.  296. 

Delaware. — France  v.  Wools- 
ton,  4  Houst.  (Del.)  557. 

Missonri. — Mesker  v.  Cutler,  51 
Mo.  App.  341. 

Oregon. — Curtis  v.  Sestanovich, 
26  Ore.  107,  37  Pac.  67. 

Utah.— Culmer  v.  Clift,  14  Utah 
286.  47   Pac.   85. 

20 Georgia. — Phillips  v.  Hyde,  45 
Ga.  220. 

Illinois. — Culver  v.  Schroth,  153 
111.  437,  39  N.  E.  115. 

Missouri. — Bruce  v.  Hoos,  48 
Mo.  App.  161;  Sanderson  v.  Flem- 
ing, 37  Mo.  App.  595;  Mitchell 
Planing-Mill  Co.  v.  Allison,  138 
Mo.  50,  40  S.  W.  118,  60  Am.  St. 
544. 

Utah Doan  v.  Clinton,  2  Utah 

417.  A  lien  account  which  states 
that  the  "demand  accrued  within 
four  months  prior  to  the  filing  of 
this  lien"  is  sufficient,  although 
the  items  of  the  account  are  not 
dated.  People's  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Hays,   75    Mo.    App.    516.     Under 


303 


CLAIM AVERMENT  OF  AMOUNT  DUE. 


[§  115 


labor  was  performed,  except  as  such  facts  may  be  essential  to 
fix  the  time  limit  for  filing,  or  the  validity  of  the  lien.^i 

§  115.    Claim  or  statement — averment  of  amount  due. — The 

lien  statement  should  always  show  the  amount  due  or  to  be- 
come due  between  the  parties  to  the  account.^  As  to  the  de- 
gree of  certainty  required  in  this  respect  the  statute  must  de- 
termine.2  jf  i\^q  statute  is  silent  and  the  account  is  made  out 
in  detail,  the  statement  will  be  sufficient  if  it  gives  the  general 
balance.^      However,  if  the  statute  requires  a  fuller  statement 


some  statutes,  where  it  seems  that 
the  statement  is  for  the  public 
generally,  an  allegation  of  the 
time  when  the  debt  is  due,  is  re- 
quired. Wade  V.  Reitz,  18  Ind. 
307;  Hill  v.  Stagg,  1  Wils.  (Ind.) 
403. 

2i]Vew  York.— Lutz  v.  Ey,  3  Abb. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  475,  3  E.  D.  Smith  (N. 
Y.)   621. 

Pennsylvania. — Cowan  v.  Penn- 
sylvania Plate-Glass  Co.,  184  Pa. 
St.  16,  38  Atl.  1081;  McKay's  Ap- 
peal, 37  Pa.  St.  125;  Fourth  Bap- 
tist Church  V.  Trout,  28  Pa.  St. 
153;  Lehman  v.  Thomas,  5  Watts 
&  S.  (Pa.)  262;  Ellice  v.  Paul,  2 
Phila.  (Pa.)  102.  On  separate 
buildings,  must  show  when  each 
is  completed.  Knauft  v.  Miller,  45 
Minn.  61,  47  N.  W.  313.  A  claim 
for  a  mechanic's  lien  stating  that 
certain  work  was  done  and  ma- 
terials furnished  within  six 
months  last  past  does  not  suffic- 
iently comply  with  Act  April  24, 
1849  (Pa.),  which  provides  that, 
in  the  counties  of  Philadelphia 
and  Chester,  the  claim  shall  state 
the  time  when  the  work  was  be- 
gun and  ended.  McNamee  v. 
Hildeburn,  9  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  267. 


ijfew  Mexico. — Pearce  v.  Al- 
bright, 12  N.  Mex.  202,  76  Pac. 
286. 

New  Yorli. — Maurer  v.  Bliss,  14 
Daly  (N.  Y.)  150;  Finn  v.  Smith, 
186  N.  Y.  465,  74  N.  E.   714. 

IVortli  Dakota. — Turner  v.  St. 
John,  8  N.  Dak.  245,  78  N.  W.  340. 

West  Virginia. — O'Niel  v.  Tay- 
lor.  59   W.   Va.   370,   53   S.   E.   471. 

Measurement.  A  mechanic's 
claim  setting  forth  that  it  was  for 
work  and  materials  furnished  in 
pursuance  of  a  contract,  is  regu- 
lar on  its  face,  and  the  lien  will 
be  sustained  by  proof  that  the 
price  of  the  work  was  to  be  ascer- 
tained by  measurement  after  its 
completion.  Miller  v.  Bedford,  86 
Pa.  St.  454.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig, 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  147. 

2Baumhoff  v.  St.  Louis,  &c.,  R. 
Co.,  171  Mo.  120,  71  S.  W.  156,  94 
Am.  St.  770. 

i!  Eggert  V.  Snoke,  122  Iowa  582, 
98  N.  W.  372;  Bangs  v.  Berg,  82 
Iowa  350,  48  N.  W.  90;  Nichols  v. 
Culver,  51  Conn.  177;  Fehling  v. 
Goings,  67  N.  J.  Eq.  375,  58  Atl. 
642.  A  mechanic's  lien  statement, 
which     states   that   the     contract 


§115; 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


304 


showing  the  items,  they  must  be  set  out  to  entitle  the  claim- 
ant to  his  lien.^  In  a  case  where  the  contract  was  entire  a  gen- 
eral balance  was  held  sufficient.^  A  "just  and  true  account" 
is  made  whenever  it  appears  that  the  account  filed  has  not 
been  knowingly,  intentionally  or  fraudulently  falsified.*^  An 
honest  mistake  as  to  the  amount  is  not  generally  regarded  as 
fatal"  unless  it  is  misstated  for  a  fraudulent  purpose,  in  which 
event  the  entire  statement  is  rendered  void.^  So  the  statement 
will  be  void  even  where  not  false,  if  lienable  and  non-lienable 
items  are  so  carelessly  intermingled  that  it  cannot  be  deter- 


price  was  $2.50,  that  the  owner  had 
paid   $125,   "and  that  the   sum  of 

$ is  still  due,"  is  a  sufficient 

compliance  with  the  statute  re- 
quiring such  statement  to  show 
the  "balance  due."  Harris  v. 
Harris,  9  Colo.  App.  211,  47  Pa. 
841. 

■iCrandall  v.  Lyon,  188  111.  86, 
58  N.  E.  972 ;  Ehdin  v.  Murphy,  170 
111.  399,  48  N.  E.  956;  Lee  v.  Exe- 
ter Club,  9  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  581; 
Fairhaven  Land  Co.  v.  Jordan,  5 
Wash.  729,  32  Pac.  729.  See  §  117. 
Under  a  statute  requiring  the  no- 
tice of  lien  to  contain  "a  state- 
ment of  the  demand  and  the 
amount  thereof,  after  deducting, 
as  near  as  possible,  all  just 
credits  and  offsets,"  it  must  state 
the  amount  due  before  and  after 
deducting  offsets.  W^heeler  v.  Port 
Blakely  Mill  Co.,  2  Wash.  Terr. 
71,  3  Pac.  635. 

5  Wescott  V.  Bunker,  S3  Me.  499. 
22  Atl.  388.  Toid — A  claim  for  a 
lien  for  an  aggregate  amount  of 
materials  furnished  under  con- 
tracts between  different  par- 
ties, and  mingled  together  in  one 


account,  is  void.  Hooven,  &c., 
Co.  V.  Featherstone,  111  Fed.  81, 
49  C.  C.  A.  229. 

6An  account  filed  is  not  ren- 
dered incorrect  by  the  omission 
of  a  credit  for  a  sum  which  would 
have  been  due  under  a  rebate. 
Hydraulic  Press  Brick  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Taggart,  76  Mo.  App.  347.  An 
exaggeration  must  be  explained. 
Greilick  Co.  v.  Taylor,  143  Mich. 
704,  107  N.  W.  712,  13  Det.  Leg. 
X.   92. 

'I' Connecticut. — Kiel  v.  Carll,  51 
Conn.  440. 

Illinois. — Treloar  v.  Hamilton, 
225  111.  102,  80  X.  E.  75. 

Xew  Jersey. — Taylor  v.  Wahl, 
69  N.  J.  L.  471,  55  Atl.  40. 

IVcTV  York Held  v.   Burke,   83 

App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  509,  82  X.  Y. 
Supp  426. 

>ortIi  Dakota.  —  Turner  v.  St. 
John,  S  X.  Dak.  245,  78  X.  W.  340. 

Oregon. — Chamberlain  v.  Hib- 
bard,  26  Ore.  428,  38  Pac.  437. 

8  Bohn  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Keenan,  15  S. 
Dak.  377,  89  N.  W.  1009;  Hecla 
Iron  Works  v.  Hall,  115  App.  Div. 
(X.  Y.)    126,  100  X.  Y.   Supp.   696. 


305 


CLAIM AVERMENT  OF  AMOUNT  DUE. 


[§115 


mined  which  are  properly  within  the  statute.^  The  same  re- 
sult may  follow  if  the  statement  is  so  defective  that  the  amount 
claimed  can  not  be  ascertained.^*^  But  a  mere  aggregated 
statement  will  not  be  held  too  indefinite  where  the  credits 
may  all  apply  on  the  total  debt.^^  If  the  person  charged  has 
full  knowledge  of  the  amount  claimed,  then  the  demand  for 
exactness  is  not  so  great,  and  a  less  degree  of  certainty  will  not 
invalidate  the  statement. ^^  j^  has  been  held  that  the  state- 
ment is  sufificient  if  the  amount  can  be  determined  by  reference 
to  the  afifidavit,^^  or  the  bill  attached. ^^  However,  if  claims 
have  been  assigned  they  cannot  be  blended  together  afterwards 
and  a  general  balance  for  all  given. ^^  Among  other  things  it 
has  been  held  that  the  statement  was  not  invalidated  by  the 


sPeatman  v.  Centerville  Light, 
Heat,  &c.,  Co.,  105  Iowa  1,  74  N. 
W.  689,  67  Am.  St.  276;  Driscoll  v. 
Hill,  11  Allen  (Mass.)  154.  Joint 
account. — Where  an  individual  ac- 
count of  one  of  the  parties  to  a 
joint  account  and  joint  contract  is 
incorporated  in  and  confused  with 
the  account  of  materials  furnished 
on  the  joint  account,  a  mechanic's 
lien  will  not  lie  under  Rev.  St. 
(Mo.)  1889,  §  6729.  McAdow  v. 
Miltenberger,  75  Mo.  App.  346. 

iwReitz  V.  Ohio,  47  Mo.  App. 
287;  White  v.  Livingston,  69  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  361,  75  N.  Y.  Supp. 
466. 

iiKendall  v.  Fader,  199  111.  294, 
65  N.  E.  318.  A  statement  of  me- 
chanic's lien,  including  the  claim 
of  the  lienor,  and  also  the  claims 
of  others  assigned  to  him,  the 
amount  due  on  each  claim  being 
stated  separately,  is  not  void  be- 
cause an  aggregate  credit  is 
given;  it  being  presumed,  in  the 
absence  of  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary, that  the  payment  was  made 

20 


after  the  assignment,  and  applied 
by  the  creditor  to  the  total  debt. 
Small  V.  Foley,  8  Colo.  App.  435, 
47   Pac.    64. 

i2Hydraulic  Press  Brick  Co.  v. 
McTaggart,  76  Mo.  App.  347;  Bry- 
son  V.  St.  Helen,  79  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
167,  29   N.  Y.   Supp.  524. 

iSDrexel  v.  Richards,  50  Neb. 
509,  70  N.  W.  23. 

i^Lee  V.  Exeter  Club,  9  Kulp 
(Pa.)  209;  Muffly  v.  Karchnak,  8 
Kulp   (Pa.)   278. 

i^Hanna  v.  Colorado  Sav.  Bank, 
3  Colo.  App.  28,  31  Pac.  1020. 
Several  pieces.  —  Under  2  Bal- 
linger's  Wash.  Ann.  Codes  &  St. 
§  5907,  providing  that,  where  one 
claims  a  lien  on  separate  pieces 
of  property,  if  he  does  not  desig- 
nate the  amount  due  on  each 
piece,  his  lien  is  postponed  to  oth- 
ers, a  lien  is  valid  when  the  notice 
is  defective  in  this  respect,  being 
merely  postponed  to  other  liens. 
Seattle  Lumber  Co.  v.  Sweeney,  33 
Wash.  691,  74  Pac.  1001. 


115] 


PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


306 


averment  that  the  amount  was  payable  in  "gold  coin/'^^  or 
"with  interest,"^"  or  "including  cartage/'^*  or  that  part  is  pay- 
able in  stock,^^  or  land,^'^  or  by  the  omission  of  a  sum  due  for 
a  rebate.2^  If  the  contract  setting  out  the  amount  is  in  writ- 
ing and  the  contract  is  given  verbatim,  or  substantially,  the 
statement  will  generally  be  sufficient  as  to  the  amount  due.22 
And  even  where  the  statute  requires  the  statement  to  state  the 
amount  due  after  allowing  all  just  credits  and  set-offs,  the  state- 
ment will  not  be  void  because  of  a  failure  to  set  out  credits 
and  deductions,  but  it  will  be  presumed  that  there  are  none.^^ 
And  where  it  is  required  that  the  amount  be  stated  a  statement 
in  the  form  of  ordinary  bookkeeping,  giving  the  credits  and 
debits,  will  ordinarily  suffice.^^    A  substantial  compliance  with 


16  Neihaus  v.  Morgan,  (Cal.)  45 
Pac.  255. 

1"  Mc;Millan  v.  Seneca  Lake 
Grape,  Etc.,  Co.,  5  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
12. 

18  Jones  V.  Kruse,  138  Cal.  613, 
72  Pac.  146. 

19  Baumhoff  v.  St.  Louis,  &c.,  R. 
Co.,  171  Mo.  120,  71  S.  W.  156,  94 
Am.   St.  770. 

20  Irrigation  Ditch. — Where  a 
contractor  constructing  an  irriga- 
tion ditch  agrees  to  select  a  tract 
of  land  out  of  those  to  be  benefit- 
ed, which  is  to  be  credited  to  him 
at  a  fixed  price  as  part  payment 
for  the  work,  provided  his  em- 
ployer secures  a  sufficient  deed 
from  the  owner  to  himself,  a  sub- 
sequent mechanic's  lien  filed  by 
such  contractor  Is  not  invalid  for 
failure  to  credit  the  price  of  such 
land  on  the  amount  of  his  claim, 
where  it  does  not  appear  that 
there  was  ever  any  tender  of  the 
deed,  or  any  showing  of  readiness 
or     willingness      to      deliver      it. 


Springer  Land  Assn.  v.  Ford,  168 
U.  S.  513,  18  Sup.  Ct.  170,  42 
L.   ed.   562. 

21  Hydraulic  Press  Brick  Co.  v. 
McTaggart,   76  Mo.  App.   347. 

22  Robertson  v.  Moore,  2  Idaho 
115,  77  Pac.  218;  Borden  v.  Mer- 
cer, 163  Mass.  7,  39  N.  E.  413;  Red 
River  Lumber  Co.  v.  Children  of 
Israel.  7  N.  Dak.  46,  73  N.  W.  203. 
Under  the  Ohio  statute,  if  the  con- 
tract is  in  writing  this  should  be 
stated  and  where  possible  a  copy 
should  be  given,  as  this  will  give 
the  terms  of  payment.  No  other 
statement  need  be  given.  Kunkle 
V.  Reeser,  5  Ohio  N.  P.  401. 

23  Hayes  v.  Hammond,  162  111. 
133,  44  N.  E.  422;  Baldwin  v. 
Spear  Bros.,  79  Vt.  43,  64  Atl.  235. 

2  4  Ehdin  v.  Murphy,  170  111.  390; 
48  X.  E.  956;  Hobbs  v.  Spiegel- 
berg,  3  N.  Mex.  357,  5  Pac.  529; 
Ainslie  v.  Kohn,  16  Ore.  363,  19 
Pac.  97.  On  different  buildings. — 
Southern  California  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Peters,  3  Cal.  App.  478,  86  Pac. 
816. 


307 


CLAIM ITEMIZED  ACCOUNT. 


116 


the  statute  is  all  that  is  demanded.^^  Under  some  statutes  a 
claimant  is  authorized  to  file  a  promissory  note  given  by  the 
owner  in  lieu  of  a  statement.  In  the  absence  of  a  statute  this 
would  seem  to  satisfy  the  requirement  as  to  notice  of  the 
amount  due.  The  provision  is  regarded  as  permissive  rather 
than  compulsory  and  does  not  prevent  the  claimant  from  filing 
an  itemized  statement.^^ 


§  116.  Claim  or  statement — itemized  account. — While  the 
statement  must  show  that  there  is  a  certain  amount  due/  yet 
unless  the  statute  so  directs,  the  statement  need  not  contain  an 
itemized   account.-     Statutory   requirements   that  there   be   a 


23  Alabama.  —  Alabama  State 
Fair  &  Agr.  Assn.  v.  Alabama 
Gas  Fixture  &  Plumbing  Co.,  131 
Ala.  256,  31  So.  26. 

California, — Preston  v.  Sonora 
Lodge,  39  Cal.  116. 

Missouri. — McLaughlin  v.  Scha- 
wacker,  31  Mo.  App.  365. 

New  York — Smith  v.  Bally,  8 
Daly  (N.  Y.)   128. 

Oregon. — Kezartee  v.  Marks,  15 
Ore.  529,  16  Pac.  407;  Whittier  v. 
Blakely,  13  Ore.  546,  11  Pac.  305. 

Texas. — Bassett  v.  Brewer,  74 
Tex.  554,  12  S.  W.  229;  Noyes  v. 
Smith,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  77  S.  W. 
649. 

West  Virginia. — O'Niel  v.  Tay- 
lor, 59  W.  Va.  370,  53  S.  E.  471. 
Comp.  Laws,  N.  Mex.  1884,  §  1524, 
requiring  a  claim  of  lien  to  state 
the  lienor's  demands  after  "de- 
ducting all  just  credits  and  off- 
sets" is  satisfied  by  a  statement 
that  the  lien  is  a  certain  sum, 
the  balance  due,  after  deducting 
all  just  credits  and  offsets,  for 
work  done  under  a  contract  which 
is  made  part  of  the  notice,  and 
for  an   additional   sum   for   extra 


work  allowed  by  the  terms  of 
the  contract.  Ford  v.  Springer 
Land  Assn.,  8  N.  Mex.  37,  41  Pac. 
541.  Where  the  statement  substi- 
tutes words  "over  and  above  all 
credits  and  effects"  for  the  words 
"over  and  above  all  credits  and 
offsets"  mentioned  in  the  statute, 
it  is  a  substantial  compliance 
therewith.  Merchant  v.  Humes- 
ton,  2  Wash.  Terr.  433,  7  Pac.  903. 
A  slight  unintentional  mistake 
will  not  defeat  the  lien.  Alabama, 
&c..  Lumber  Co.  v.  Tisdale,  139 
Ala.  250,  36  So.  618. 

2G  Higley  v.  Ringle,  57  Kan.  222, 
45  Pac.  619;  Knutzen  v.  Hanson, 
28  Neb.  591,  44  N.  W.  1065. 

1  See  §§  81,  115. 

2  Alabama — Garrison  v.  Haw- 
kins Lumber  Co.,  Ill  Ala.  308,  20 
So.  427. 

Missouri. — Mahan  v.  Brinnell, 
94  Mo.  App.  165,  67  S.  W.  930. 

Obio. — Keating  v.  Worthington, 
11  Ohio  Dec.  Re.  428,  27  Wkly. 
L.  Bui.  (Ohio)  14;  Thomas  v. 
Huesman,  10  Ohio  St.  152. 

Oregon. — Curtis   v.   Sestanovich, 


§116] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


308 


statement  "of  the  demand,  showing  its  nature  and  character, "^ 
or  "of  the  terms,  time  and  conditions  of  contract,"^  or  "of  the 
amount  due,"^  or  a  "just  and  true  account  with  all  credits,"^ 
or  "demand  after  deducting  all  credits,'"^  or  "true  statement  of 
demands,"^  or  "specifically  set  forth  precisely  the  amount 
claimed,"^  or  "stating  the  specific  amount  claimed,"^'^  have  been 
held  not  to  require  an  itemized  statement.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  has  been  held  that  a  simple  statement  that  a  cer- 
tain sum  is  due,  was  not  a  "statement  or  account  of 
the  demand,"^^  and  that  a  bare  statement  of  a  round  sum  due 
was  not  a  "just  and  true  account  of  the  demand  due  after  all 
credits  have  been  given. "i-  As  a  general  rule  "a  just  and 
true  account"  implies  an  itemized  or  detailed  statement  of  the 
transactions  which  are  the  basis  of  the  lien.^^      Subcontractors 


26  Ore.  107,  37  Pac.  67;  Ainslie 
V.  Kohn,  16  Ore.  363,  19  Pac.  97. 

Utah.— Culmer  v.  Caine,  22  Utah 
216,  61  Pac.  1008.  Mechanic's 
Lien  Act,  III.  1895,  §  7,  requiring 
an  itemized  account  of  extras, 
when  such  are  claimed,  goes  only 
to  a  recovery  for  the  extras,  and 
cannot  defeat  the  entire  claim; 
and  hence,  a  claim  of  lien  is  not 
defective  because  the  extras 
averred  in  the  petition  are  not 
itemized  in  the  claim.  Sedgwick 
V.  Concord  Apartment  House  Co., 
104  111.  App.  5.  Substantial  com- 
pliance only  required.  Dobson  v. 
Thurman,  (Ky.)  101  S.  W.  310.  30 
Ky.  L.  1331.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanic's  Lien,  §  149. 

3  Selden  v.  Meeks,  17  Cal.  12S; 
Brennan  v.  Swasey,  16  Cal.  140, 
76  Am.  Dec.  507.  If  annexed  suf- 
ficient. American  Car  &  Foundry 
Co.  v.  Alexandria  Water  Co.,  215 
Pa.  520,  64  Atl.  683. 


4  Jewell  V.  McKay,  82  Cal.  144, 
23  Pac.  139. 

5  Ricker  v.  Joy,  72  Me.  106. 

6  Sexton  V.  Weaver,  141  Mass. 
273,  6  N.  E.  367. 

7  Lonkey  v.  Wells,  16  Nev.  271. 
An  itemized  statement  contain- 
ing the  single  item  "estimate  fur- 
nished, $485,"  has  been  held  not 
sufficient  to  entitle  the  material 
man  to  his  lien  for  such  item  of 
$485.  Niswander  v.  Black,  50  W. 
Va.  188,  40  S.  E.  431. 

8  Ainslie  v.  Kohn,  16  Ore.  363, 
19  Pac.  97. 

9  Emack  v.  Campbell,  14  App. 
Cas.    (D.  C.)    186. 

10  Neeley  v.  Searight,  113  Ind. 
316,   15   N.   E.   598. 

11  McDonald  v.  Rosengarten,  35 
111.  App.  71;  Valentine  v.  Rawson, 
57  Iowa  179,  10  N.  W.  338;  Graves 
v.  Pierce,  53  Mo.  423. 

12  McWilliams  v.  Allan,  45  Mo. 
573. 

13  Missouri. — Mitchell  Planing- 
Mill   Co.   v.   Allison,   71  Mo.  App. 


309 


CLAIM ITEMIZED  ACCOUNT. 


116 


are  generally  required  to  file  itemized  statements. ^^  An  ac- 
count having  no  heading  to  it,^^  or  so  uncertain  that  it  cannot 
be  determined  who  is  to  be  charged,  or  what  for,  is  clearly  in- 
sufficient.^^ Even  where  the  statute  requires  an  itemized 
statement,  the  items  need  not  be  set  out  in  detail  if  the  con- 
tract is  for  a  gross  sum,^'^  or  is  what  is  known  as  a  "lump  job,"^^ 


251;  Curless  v.  Lewis,  46  Mo. 
App.  278;  Grace  v.  Nesbitt,  109 
Mo.  9,  18  S.  W.  1118. 

New  Jersey. — Associates  of  Jer- 
sey Co.  V.  Davison,  5  Dutch.  N.  J. 
L.  415. 

North  Carolina, — Wray  v.  Har- 
ris, 77  N.  Car.  77. 

Pennsylvania. — Wolf  v.  Keeley, 
23  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  408;  Chapman  v. 
Faith,  18  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  578; 
Joyce  V.  Corcoran,  9  Kulp,  (Pa.) 
502. 

West  Virginia. — Niswander  v. 
Black,  50  W.Va.  188,40  S.  E.  435. 
An  account  is  defined  to  be  a  de- 
tailed statement  of  mutual  de- 
mands in  the  matter  of  debt  and 
credit  between  the  parties,  aris- 
ing out  of  contract,  or  some  fidu- 
ciary relation.  The  definition  is 
an  accurate  one,  and  expresses 
the  sense  in  which  the  term  is 
used  in  the  mechanic's  lien  law, 
and  also  the  sense  in  which  the 
word  is  current  in  business  af- 
fairs. McWilliams  v.  Allan,  45 
Mo.  573. 

14  Missouri. — Mahan  v.  Brinnell, 
94  Mo.  App.   165,   67   S.  W.   930. 

Pennsylvania, — Wharton  v.  Real 
Estate  Inv.  Co.,  180  Pa.  St.  168, 
36  Atl.  725,  57  Am.  St.  629,  40  W. 
N.  C.  (Pa.)  33;  Gray  v.  Dick,  97 
Pa.  St.  142;  Chapman  v.  Faith, 
18  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  578;  Davenport 
V.    Persch,   17    Pa.    Co.   Ct.   423,   5 


Pa.  Dist.  38;  Howell  v.  Campbell, 
12  Phila.  (Pa.)  388.  Whether  he 
is  a  subcontractor  or  contractor, 
is  for  the  jury  to  determine.  Mc- 
Cune  V.  Hatch,  18  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
469. 

15  Maroni  v.  Junty,  26  R.  I.  109, 
58  Atl.  450. 

16  Bossert  v.  Happel,  89  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  7,  85  N.  Y.  Supp.  308; 
Malaney  v.  Mears,  2  Lack.  Leg. 
N.  (Pa.)  77. 

1"  California. — Heston  v.  Mar- 
tin, 11  Cal.  41. 

Delaware. — France  v.  Woolston, 
4  Houst.  (Del.)  557. 

Kansas. — Nixon  v.  Cydon  Lodge, 
56  Kan.  298,  43  Pac.  236. 

Maine. — Wescott  v.  Bunker,  S3 
Me.  499,  22  Atl.  388. 

Minnesota. — Leeds  v.  Little,  42 
Minn.  414,  44  N.  W.  309. 

Oliio. — Davis  v.  Hines,  6  Ohio 
St.  473. 

Pennsylvania, — Young  v.  Ly- 
man, 9  Pa.  St.  449;  Stiles  v. 
Leamy,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  29,  7  Leg. 
Int.  (Pa.)  19;  Haines  v.  Burr,  1 
Phila.    (Pa.)    52. 

18  Illinois. — Moore  v.  Parish,  58 
111.  App.  617. 

Kansjrs. — School  Dist.  No.  3  v. 
Howell,  44  Kan.  285,  24  Pac.  365; 
Sharon  Town  Co.  v.  Morris,  39 
Kan.  377,  18   Pac.  230. 

Missouri. — Grace  v.  Nesbitt,  109 
Mo.   9,   18   S.  W.   1118;    Buchanan 


116] 


PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


310 


especially  as  between  the  owner  and  the  contractor.^^  But 
the  statement  should  be  itemized  where  the  matter  is  be- 
tween the  owner  and  the  subcontractor,2o  or  where  a  third 
person  may  be  interested  in  knowing  what  each  item  cost  or 
is  worth.2i  Under  some  statutes  it  is  held  that  while  the  price 
may  be  stated  as  an  entirety,  yet  the  items  must  be  set  forth 
in  detail.22 


V.  Cole,  57  Mo.  App.  11;  Smith 
V.  Haley,  41  Mo.  App.  611;  Louisi- 
ana, &c.,  Lumber  Co.  v.  Myers, 
87  Mo.  App.  671. 

Nebraska. — Doolittle  v.  Plenz, 
16  Neb.  153,  20  N.  W.  116;  Guiou 
V.  Ryckman.  77  Neb.  833,  110  N.  W. 
759. 

Oliio. — Thomas  v.  Huesman,  10 
Ohio  St.  152. 

Pennsylvania. — Knabb's  Appeal, 
10  Pa.  St.  186,  51  Am.  Dec.  472; 
Thorn  v.  Heugh,  9  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.) 
46;  Brown  v.  Kolb.  43  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)  26,  8  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  413;  Mc- 
Dowell V.  Hill,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  102; 
Haines  v.  Barr,  1  Phila.  52,  7  Leg. 
Int.    (Pa.)    54. 

Texas. — Pool  v.  Wedemeyer,  56 
Tex.  287. 

Yirginia. — Taylor  v.  Nether- 
wood,  91  Va.  88,  20  S.  E.  888. 

Vermont. — Baldwin  v.  Spear 
Bros.,  79  Vt.  43,  64  Atl.  235.  The 
earlier  Missouri  cases  hold,  that 
even  if  it  be  a  lump  charge  or  an 
entire  contract,  that  it  must  be 
set  out  in  detail;  afterwards  this 
doctrine  was  modified,  so  that 
only  a  detailed  statement  was  ac- 
quired when  a  recovery  was 
sought  upon  a  quantum  meruit. 
A  later  court  announced  the  doc- 
trine now  generally  followed  that 
where  the  contract  is  entire  or  a 


lump  charge  made,  that  a  de- 
tailed statement  is  not  required. 
Busso  V.  Fette,  55  Mo.  App.  453. 

19  Missouri. — Hilliker  v.  Fran- 
cisco, 65  Mo.  598;  Abbott  v.  Hood, 
60  Mo.  App.  196,  1  Mo.  App.  Rep'r, 
115;  Busso  v.  Fette,  55  Mo.  App. 
453;  Neal  v.  Smith,  49  Mo.  App. 
328. 

Pennsylvania, — Young  v.  Ly- 
man, 9  Pa.  St.  449;  O'Niel  v.  Tay- 
lor, 59  W.  Va.  370,  53  S.  E.  471. 

20  Shields  v.  Garrett,  12  Phila. 
(Pa.)  458.  Jot  Required  from 
Subcontractor. — "Where  the  work 
undertaken  by  a  subcontractor  is 
an  entire  job — as  the  construc- 
tion of  a  heating  and  ventilating 
plant — for  an  entire  price,  and 
the  contract  is  set  out  in  the  affi- 
davit claiming  a  lien  for  the  con- 
tract price,  an  itemized  state- 
ment of  account  is  not  required 
under  such  statute.  Great  South- 
ern Fireproof  Hotel  Co.  v.  Jones, 
116  Fed.  793,  54  C.  C.  A.  165. 

21  Carson  v.  WTiite,  6  Gill  (Md.) 
17. 

22  Sosman  v.  Conlon,  57  Mo. 
App.  25;  Bruns  v.  Capstick,  46 
Mo.  App.  397;  Kern  v.  Pfaff,  44 
Mo.  App.  29.  Under  Rev.  St.  Mo. 
§  3176,  requiring  a  contractor,  in 
order  to  be  entitled  to  a  mechan- 
ic's lien,  to  file  a  statement  show- 


311 


CLAIM — SUFFICIENCY  OF  DETAIL. 


117 


§  117.  Claim  or  statement — sufficiency  of  detail. — The  stat- 
utory requirements  in  reference  to  what  the  statement  should 
contain,  its  items,  etc.,  must  be  substantially  complied  with.^ 
And  it  has  been  held  that  in  determining  the  sufficiency  of 
such  statement,  the  same  rules  are  applied  as  in  pleading  in 
deciding  a  demurrer  to  a  petition.^  But  the  courts  cannot  sup- 
ply the  omission  of  material  parts.^  However,  immaterial 
omissions  or  mistakes  will  be  disregarded.^  So  if  matters  are 
inserted  that  ought  not  to  be,  unless  fraudulently  done,  it  will 


ing  a  true  account  of  the  demand 
due  him  after  all  credits  have 
been  given,  the  statement  must 
be  fairly  itemized,  showing  the 
materials  used,  the  work  done, 
and  the  price  charged;  and  a 
statement  filed  by  a  principal  con- 
tractor lumping  the  contract  price 
on  the  one  side  and  the  credits 
on  the  other,  and  referring  to 
certain  plans  and  specifications 
for  the  work  done  and  materials 
furnished,  is  not  sufficient.  Rude 
V.  Mitchell,  97  Mo.  365,  11  S.  W. 
225. 

1  Sosman  v.  Great  Southern. 
Fireproof  Hotel  Co.,  116  Fed.  800, 
54  C.  C.  A.  162;  Felgenhauer  v. 
Haas,  123  App.'Div.  (N.  Y.)  75, 
108  N.  Y.  Supp.  476;  Great  South- 
ern Fireproof  Hotel  Co.  v.  Jones, 
116  Fed.  793.  54  C.  C.  A.  165.  St. 
Vt.  c.  109,  requiring  a  mechanic's 
lien  claimant  to  file  a  written 
memorandum  signed  by  him  as- 
serting his  claim,  does  not  require 
that  the  statement  should  contain 
the  particulars  of  the  contract  or 
the  items  of  the  account.  Bald- 
win V.  Spear  Bros.,  79  Vt.  43,  64 
Atl.   235. 

2  Ferguson  v.  Ashbell,  53  Tex. 
245. 


3  Ellinwood     v.   Worcester,   154 
Mass.   590,  28   N.  E.   1053. 

■1  Neuman  v.  Grant,  36  Mont.  77, 
92  Pac.  43;  Deardorff  v.  Roy,  50 
Mo.  App.  70.  First  and  last  item 
incorrectly  given,  no  one  being 
misled.  Coughlan  v.  Longini,  77, 
Minn.  514,  80  N.  W.  695.  Letters 
and  abbreviations.  Smith  v.  Head- 
ley,  33  Minn.  384,  23  N.  W.  550. 
Omission  of  dollar  mark.  Smith 
V.  Headley,  33  Minn.  384,  23  N.  W. 
550.  Gutzwiller  v.  Crowe,  32  Minn. 
70, 19  N.  W.  344.  Price  not  carried 
out  for  each  item.  Grace  v.  Nes- 
bitt,  109  Mo.  9,  18  S.  W.  IIIS. 
Where  material  for  a  building  is 
purchased  on  one  day,  and  the 
items  delivered  at  various  subse- 
quent dates,  and  the  lien  account 
sets  them  all  forth  as  of  the  date 
of  the  purchase,  such  irregular- 
ity will  not  vitiate  the  account. 
Louisiana  &c..  Lumber  Co.  v.  My- 
ers, 87  Mo.  App.  671.  Ordinary 
bookkeeping  abbreviations.  Schu- 
lenberg  v.  Werner,  6  Mo.  App. 
292;  Gray  v.  Dick,  97  Pa.  St.  142. 
Trade  terms.  Great  Southern 
Fireproof  Hotel  Co.  v.  Jones,  116 
Fed.  793,  54  C.  C.  A.  165. 


§11/] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


312 


be  immaterial.^  The  omission  of  the  date  is  held  to  be  fatal,^ 
but  one  date  at  the  top  may  be  sufficient  as  to  all  items  that 
were  delivered  at  that  time/  An  itemized  exhibit  attached 
will  suppl)^  an  omission  of  that  character  in  the  statement.^ 
As  a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that  in  determining  questions 
of  this  character,  all  the  papers  filed  are  to  be  considered  to- 
gether.^ A  statement  that  sets  forth  the  dates  of  payment  on 
the  contract  and  amounts  unpaid  and  claimed  as  due  is  a  "true 
and  correct  account. "^'^'  or  gives  "times,  prices  and  credits" 
fully, ^^  or  in  the  usual  mode  of  estimating  work,  shows  quan- 
tity and  measurement  of  different  elements,  it  is  sufficient.^-  But 
a  statement  containing  but  three  items,  namely,  the  contract 
price,  the  total  value  of  material  and  labor  on  an  abandoned  job, 


5  Ulrich  V.  Osborn,  106  Mo.  App. 
192,  81  S.  W.  228;  Schulenberg 
&c.,  Lumber  Co.  v.  Strimple,  33 
Mo.  App.  154. 

6  Meyers  v.  Wood,  25  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  591,  65  S.  W.  671. 

'  Meyers  v.  Wood,  95  Tex.  67, 
65  S.  W.  174. 

8  Maryland. — Baker  v.  Winter, 
15  Md.  1. 

Oklahoma. — Ferguson  v.  Steph- 
enson-Brown Lumber  Co.,  14 
Okla.  14S,   77   Pac.  184. 

Pennsylvania. — Knabb's  Appeal, 
10  Pa.  St.  186,  51  Am.  Dec.  472; 
Haines  \.  Barr,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  52, 
7  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  54. 

IVashington. — Johnston  v.  Har- 
rington, 5  Wash.  73,  31  Pac.  316. 

United  States. — Sosman  v.  Great 
Southern  Fireproof  Hotel  Co.,  116 
Fed.  800,  54  C.  C.  A.  162. 

9  Peoples'  Lumber  Co.  v.  Hayes, 
75  Mo.  App.  516. 

10  An  account,  consisting  of  a 
charge,  "To  lumber  for  house" 
and  of  a  credit,  "By  work,"  is 
sufficiently   itemized    account    un- 


der law,  which  provides  that  the 
account  be  in  writing  of  the  items 
of  "labor,  skill,  machinery,  or  ma- 
terial furnished."  Manly  v.  Down- 
ing, 15  Neb.  637,  19  N.  W.  601. 

11  Miller  v.  Whitelaw,  28  Mo. 
App.  639;  Burrough  v.  White,  18 
Mo.  App.  229. 

12  Missouri. — Walden  v.  Robert- 
son, 120  Mo.  38.  25  S.  W.  349; 
Kearney  v.  Wurdeman,  33  Mo. 
App.  447;  McLaughlin  v.  Scha- 
wacker,  31  Mo.  App.  365;  McDer- 
mott  V.  Class,  104  Mo.  14,  15  S.  W. 
995. 

Montana. — Bardwell  v.  Ander- 
son. 13  Mont.  87,  32  Pac.  285. 

Pennsylvania. — Smaltz  v.  Knott, 
3  Grant  Cas.  (Pa.)  227.  The  lien 
account  of  a  subcontractor,  who 
was  wrongfully  prevented  by  the 
owner  from  completing  his  work 
on  the  building  merely  contained- 
a  charge  "for  2,493  hours*  carpen- 
ter work"  on  the  building  at  a 
stated  price  per  hour,  and  a  cred- 
it for  a  payment  received  there- 
on.    Held,   that  the   account  was 


313 


CLAIM SUFFICIENCY  OF  DETAIL. 


[§117 


is  not  a  sufficient  itemized  statement. ^^  Neither  is  a  "bill 
of  doors"  and  a  ''bill  of  mill  work/'^^  nor  merely  stating  the 
time  between  certain  dates, ^^  nor  the  balance  due/^  nor  a  ref- 
erence to  the  contract  for  items.^'^  If  under  the  law  one  claim 
can  be  filed  against  several  buildings/^  the  items  need  not  be 
apportioned.^^  Where  statutes  require  the  apportionment  of 
the  items  furnished,  it  is  held  that  it  does  not  apply  where  the 
structures  are  all  on  one  piece  of  land.^^  If  the  material  is 
used  on  different  houses  on  separate  tracts  of  land,  it  is  gen- 


sufficient.  Brockmeier  v.  Dette, 
58  Mo.  App.  607.  A  mechanic's 
claim  filed  in  court  charged  a 
building  as  follows:  "To  1,100 
yards  of  plastering  on  house  of 
Mrs.  Smith  commenced  on  or 
about  January  5,  1885,  and  fin- 
ished on  April  7,  1885,  $300.  Of 
this  sum  the  one-half,  viz.,  $150 
is  for  work  and  labor  done  in 
plastering  said  house,  and  the  oth- 
er half,  viz.,  $150,  is  for  materials, 
viz.,  lime,  sand,  hair,  water,  etc., 
furnished  for  said  plastering,"  Is 
sufficient  when  the  same  were 
done.  Smith  v.  Sarver,  (Pa.)  7 
Atl.  99. 

13  Nixon  V.  Cydon  Lodge,  56 
Kan.  298,  43  Pac.  236. 

14  Meyers  v.  Wood,  95  Tex.  67, 
65    S.    W.    174. 

15  Holtschneider  v.  Page,  51 
Mo.  App.  285;  Mercer  Milling,  «fec., 
Co.  v.  Kreaps,  18  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  1. 
Under  a  statute  providing  for  a 
just  and  true  account  a  statement 
of  "goods  furnished  from  Septem- 
ber 1st,  1890,  to  July  2,  1892,"  "17 
other  items,  amounting  to  $4,394," 
is  insufficient.  Cahill  v.  Orphan 
School  of  Christian  Church,  1  Mo. 
App.  488,  63  Mo.  App.  28. 


16  Where  the  statute  requires 
the  filing  of  an  account  in  the 
clerk's  office,  an  account  as  fol- 
lows, viz.:  "To  balance  of  ac- 
count rendered  for  work  and  la- 
bor done  and  materials  furnished 
for  your  house," — is  not  sufficient. 
Shackleford  v.  Beck,  80  Va.  573. 
Amount  of  estimate  does  not  show 
amount  and  character  of  work. 
Brown  v.  Cornwell,  (Va.)  60  S.  E. 
623. 

17  Louis  V.  Cutter,  6  Mo.  App. 
54. 

IS  See    §85. 

19  Phillips  V.  Gilbert,  101  U.  S. 
721,  25  L.  ed.  833. 

20  California. — Warren  v.  Hop- 
kins, 110  Cal.  506,  42  Pac.  986; 
Booth  V.  Pendola,  88  Cal.  36,  23 
Pac.  200,  25  Pac.  1101;  Dicken- 
son V.  Bolyer,  55  Cal.  285;  Bank 
of  Charleston  v.  Curtiss,  18  Conn. 
342;  Bowman  Lumber  Co.  v.  New- 
ton, 72  Iowa,  90,  33  N.  W.  377. 
Mansion  house,  barn,  wagon, 
house,  on  one  farm.  Lauman's 
Appeal,  8  Pa.  St.  473.  A  bone- 
boiling  establishment,  bone  house, 
wagon  shed,  dwelling  house,  and 
stable,  on  one  tract  of  land,  is 
good.  Oriel's  Appeal,  (Pa.)  9  Atl. 
861. 


§117] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


314 


erally  required  that  the  statement  should  show  what  is  prop- 
erly charged  against  each  house.^i  In  some  cases  it  is  held 
that  the  failure  to  apportion  will  not  destroy  the  lien,  but  mere- 
ly work  a  postponement  of  the  claim.22  Under  statutes  that 
give  a  lien  for  constructing,  separate  from  repairing,  the  lien 
statement  should  show  what  is  furnished  for  each.^^  And 
where  it  is  proper  to  apportion  the  items,  separate  statements 
may  be  filed  for  each.^^  If  the  parties  agree  on  a  lump  charge 
on  several  buildings  it  may  be  so  filed,^^  but  if  the  building  has 
separate  owners,  the  statement  should  show  what  was  fur- 
nished to  each,  properly  itemized.^^ 

§  118.     Claim    or    statement — signature    of    claimant. — The 

claim  must  in  some  manner  be  signed  by  the  claimant,  that  is, 
it  should  appear  from  the  statement  itself  that  a  certain  person 
is  claiming  the  benefit  of  the  lien  law.^  This  signature  or 
signing  may  be  done  personally ,2  or  by  attorney ,2  or  agent.'* 
If  done  by  the  agent  it  would  be  good,  even  if  the  authority  of 


21  Goodman  v.  Fried,  55  111.  App. 
362;  Morris  County  Bank  v.  Rock- 
away  Mfg.  Co.,  1  C.  E.  Green  (N. 
J.  Eq.)  150;  Gilman  v.  Ryan,  95 
Va.  494,  28  S.  E.  875.  Even  if  on 
an  appurtenance.  Carpenter  v. 
Leonard,  5  Minn.  119.  Doub'e 
house.  Malone's  Appeal,  79  Pa. 
St.  4S1.  Three  blocks.  Bradley 
Co.  V.  Anderson,  20  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
236. 

22  Thomas  v.  James,  7  Watts  & 
S.  (Pa.)  381;  Beitzel  v.  Stair,  2 
Pa.  Dist.  (Pa.)  337;  Gross  v. 
Stoltz,  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.    (Pa.)    190. 

23  James  v.  Van  Horn,  10  Vroom 
(N.  J.  L.)  353;  Eccles  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Martin,  31  Utah  241,  87  Pac. 
713. 

2-i  Gordon  v.  Norton,  186  Pa.  St. 
168,  40  Atl.  312,  42  W.  N.  C.  201. 


25  Dallas  V.  Brown,  60  Mo.  App. 
493,  1  Mo.  App.  Rep'r,  197. 

2C  One  partly  owning  lower  and 
other  upper  stories.  Badger  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Stepp,  157  Mo.  366,  57 
S.  W.  1059. 

1  Hentig  v.  Sperry,  38  Kan.  459, 
17  Pac.  42.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.    Mechanic's    Liens,    §  153. 

2  Stout  V.  Golden,  9  W.  Va.  231. 

3  Carey-Lombard  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Fullenwider,  150  111.  629,  37  N. 
E.  899;  Jeffersonville  Water-Sup- 
ply Co.  V.  Ritter,  146  Ind.  521,  45 
N.  E.  697;  Siegmund  v.  Kellogg- 
Mackay-Cameron  Co.,  38  Ind.  App. 
95,  77  N.  E.  1096.  Manager  of 
firm.  Sharon  Town  Co.  v.  Mor- 
ris. 39  Kan.  377,  18  Pac.  230. 

^  Donahoo  v.  Scott,  12  Pa.  St. 
45. 


315 


CLAIM SIGNATURE  OF  CLAIMANT. 


118 


the  agent  was  afterwards  given  by  ratification.^  It  has  been 
hehl  that  signing  the  verification  is  signing  the  claim,^  but  in 
West  Virginia  under  the  statute  it  was  held  that,  "subscribing 
the  affidavit"  was  not  "subscribing  the  account.""  This  seems 
to  be  rather  a  technical  holding.  A  co-partnership  may  sign 
by  the  co-partnership  name  and  not  the  individual  name  of  the 
partners.^  Signing  the  firm  name  to  the  claim  and  the  indi- 
vidual name  to  the  affidavit  will  not  be  a  variance  and  will  be 
held  to  be  sufficient.^  One  partner  has  an  implied  agency  to 
sign  for  the  firm.^*^  But  where  one  partner  administers  the 
oath  to  the  other,  the  improper  signature  will  invalidate 
the  statement. ^1  One  court  has  held  that  giving  the  name  at 
the  top  of  the  bill  is  not  its  signature. ^^  gy^  jf  [^  appears 
otherwise  in  the  body  of  the  bill  that  a  certain  person  is  the 
claimant,  other  courts  have  held  that  that  fact  would  be  sufficient, 
and  the  failure  to  sign  would  not  invalidate  the  lien.^^  A 
statutory  requirement  that  the  claim  be  in  writing  does  not  re- 
quire it  to  be  signed.^'*     Immaterial  omissions  in  this  respect 


3  Batchelder  v.  Hutchinson,  161 
Mass.  462,  37  N.  E.  452. 

6  Hicks  V.  Murray,  43  Cal.  515; 
Deatherage  v.  Woods,  37  Kan.  59, 
14  Pac.  474. 

7  Mayes  v.  Ruffners,  8  W.  Va. 
384. 

8  Smith  V.  Johnson,  2  MacAr- 
thur,    (D.  C.)    481. 

9  Sharon  Town  Co.  v.  Morris, 
39  Kan.  377,  18  Pac.  230.  Tlie 
claimant  was  designated  in  the 
statement  as  the  "Chicago  Lum- 
ber Company,"  and  the  verifica- 
tion of  the  same  signed,  "Jos.  M. 
Eck,  Manager,  Claimant."  The 
bill  of  items  which  formed  a  part 
of  the  statement  made  by  the 
claimant  designated  Eck  as  man- 
ager. Held,  that  the  signing  and 
verification  of  the  statement  was 


not  so  defective  as  to  defeat  the 
lien.  Pierce  v.  Osborn,  40  Kan. 
168,  19  Pac.  656. 

10  White  V.  Dumpke,  45  Wis. 
454. 

11  Smalley  v.  Bodinus,  120  Mich. 
363,  79  N.  W.  567. 

12  Stratton  v.  Shoenbar,  (Me.) 
10  Atl.   446. 

13  Sturdevant  v.  Nugent,  9  Kulp 
(Pa.)    176. 

14  Moore  v.  McLaughlin,  66 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  133,  21  N.  Y.  Supp. 
55.  And  neither  the  notice  of  lien 
nor  the  affidavit  of  verification 
thereon  need  be  signed  by  the 
claimant  in  order  to  constitute  a 
valid  notice,  service,  by  a  ma- 
terial man,  on  the  owner  of  the 
property,  of  a  notice  of  lien,  which 
is  a  copy  of  a  notice  filed,  except 


§119] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


316 


are    disregarded,    such    as    "of    St.    Louis"    after    a   corporate 
name.i^ 


§  119.  Claim  or  statement — verification. — Whether  or  not 
the  claim  must  be  verified  depends  upon  the  statute,  and  if  the 
statute  so  requires,  the  claim  will  be  invalid  if  it  is  not  properly 
verified.^      It  is  held  to  be  a  condition  precedent  and  if  not 


that  neither  the  copy  nor  the  veri- 
fication is  signed,  though  the  no- 
tice filed  is  signed  by  the  claim- 
ant, is  sufficient  to  charge  the 
owner.  Reeves  v.  Seitz,  47  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  267,  62  N.  Y.  Supp. 
101. 

15  Mississippi  Planing  Mill  v. 
Presbyterian  Church,  54  Mo.  520. 

1  Alabama. — McConnell  v.  Me- 
ridian Sash,  &c.  Fact.  112  Ala. 
582,  20  So.  929. 

Colorado. — Small  v.  Foley,  8 
Colo.  App.  435,  47  Pac.  64. 

Michigan. — Lindsay  v.  Huth,  74 
Mich.  712,  42  N.  W.  358. 

?i"ebraska. — Terry  v.  Prevo, 
(Neb.)    95   N.  W.   338. 

New  Tork. — Conklin  v.  Wood,  3 
E.  D.  Smith   (N.  Y.)  662. 

North  Dakota. — Turner  v.  St. 
John,  8  N.  Dak.  245,  78  N.  W.  340. 

Canada. — The  affidavit    consti- 
tutes the  lien,  and  in  order  to  ac- 
quire  the   right   must   be   strictly 
followed.      Haggerty    v.    Grant,    2 
Brit.  Col.  173. 

Necessity. — "Where  a  statute 
declares  that  the  notice  to  create 
a  lien  shall  be  verified  before  fil- 
ing, it  is  essential  to  the  creation 
of  the  lien  that  it  should  be  sworn 


to  in  the  manner  prescribed.  The 
want  of  verification,  or  of  a  suffi- 
cient verification,  is  a  defect 
which  goes  to  the  whole  claim 
and  cannot  be  amended."  Phil- 
lips, Mechanics'  Liens  (2d  ed.) 
§336,  p.  597;  Colman  v.  Goodnow, 
36  Minn.  9,  29  N.  W.  338;  Finane 
V.  Las  Vegas  Hotel  &  Imp.  Co.,  3 
N.  M.  256,  5  Pac.  725;  Minor  v. 
Marshall,  6  N.  M.  194,  27  Pac.  48J ; 
Gates  V.  Brown,  1  Wash.  470,  25 
Pac.  914;  Stetson,  &c.,  Mill  Co.  v. 
McDonald,  (Wash.)  32  Pac.  108; 
Byrd  v.  Cochran,  39  Neb.  119. 

Definition. — "The  statement  of 
account  which  the  lien  claimant 
files  must  be  'verified  by  affidavit.' 
In  the  absence  of  a  statute  affix- 
ing a  different  meaning,  'an  affi- 
davit is  simply  a  written  declara- 
tion on  oath,  in  writing,  sworn 
to  by  the  declarant,  before  a  per- 
son who  has  authority  to  admin- 
ister oaths.'  And.  Law.  Diet.,  1 
Bouv.  Law  Diet.  79 ;  Harris  v. 
Lester,  80  111.  307;  Hitsman  v. 
Garrard,  16  N.  J.  L.,  124;  Cox  v. 
Stern,  170  111.  442,  48  N.  E.  906; 
1  Enc.  PI.  &  Prac.  309.  See  also, 
Comp.  Laws  §  5278.  'The  jurat  or 
certificate  is  no  part  of  the  oach 
or   affidavit,   but   simply  evidence 


317 


CLAIM — VERIFICATION. 


[§119 


performed  as  the  statute  directs,  the  claim  is  of  no  avail.^ 
Where  a  list  is  filed  with  the  statement  it  must  by  reference 
or  otherwise  be  shown  to  be  part  of  the  statement  which  is  in- 
tended to  be  sworn  to,  or  it  will  be  void,^  as  all  parts  of  the 
statement  must  be  verified.*  However,  the  verification  or 
affidavit  is  not  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  the  account ;  this 
must  be  shown  by  other  proper  evidence.^  If  the  statute  does 
not  require  a  verification,  the  statement  will  be  good  without  it.'' 
And  under  other  statutes  it  has  been  held  that  a  failure  to 
verify  the  lien  will  not  invalidate  the  claim,  but  will  postpone 
the  lien  to  interest  of  parties  acquired  in  good  faith."  The 
affidavit  is  evidence  of  its  own  existence  and  if  properly  made 
out  and  sworn  to,  whether  the  person  knew  it  to  be  true  or  not 
will  not  aflfect  its  validity.^  Unless  the  statute  in  addition  re- 
quires that  the  person  signing  the  same  had  personal  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts,  no  allegation  of  this  fact  is  necessary ,9  nor 


that  the  oath  was  made  or  the 
affidavit  was  sworn  to.'  Bantley 
V.  Finney,  43  Neb.  794,  62  N.  W. 
213;  Williams  v.  Stevenson,  103 
Ind.  243,  2  N.  E.  728.  It  is  also 
held  that  'it  is  not  necessary  to 
its  completeness  that  the  party 
making  should  sign  it,  unless  the 
statute  expressly  requires  such 
signatures.'  Bates  v.  Robinson,  8 
Iowa  318;  Hagardine  v.  Van  Horn, 
72  Mo.  379;  Norton  v.  Hauge,  47 
Minn.  405,  50  N.  W.  368."  See  Dec. 
&  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§154. 

2  Colorado. — Rice  v.  Carmichael, 
4  Colo.  App.  84,  34  Pac.  1010. 

New  York. — Cream  City  Furni- 
ture Co.  V.  Squier,  2  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
438,  21  N.  Y.   Supp.  972. 

Pennsylvania. — Gibbs  v.  Peck, 
77  Pa.  St.  86;  Snyder  v.  Crothers, 
31    Leg.    Int.    404,    1    Walk.    (Pa.) 


39;    Egolf  V.   Casselberry,   14   Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  87. 

3  Martin  v.  Burns,  54  Kan.  641, 
39  Pac.  177. 

4  Minor  v.  Marshall,  6  N.  M. 
194,    27    Pac.    481. 

5  Statute  did  not  require  ac- 
count to  be  sworn  to  and  it  was 
not  sworn  to.  Darlington  v.  Eld- 
ridge,  88  Mo.  App.   525. 

6  Graf  V.  Cunningham,  109  N.  Y. 
369,  16  N.  E.  551. 

T  Hill  V.  Alliance  Bldg.  Co.,  6  S. 
Dak.  160,  60  N.  W.  752,  55  Am.  St. 
819. 

8  Leftwich  Lumber  Co.  v.  Flor- 
ence Mutual  Building,  &c.,  Assn., 
104  Ala.  584,  18  So.  48;  Union 
Stove  Works  v.  Klingman,  164  N. 
Y.  589,  58  N.  E.  1093;  Ward  v. 
Kilpatrick,  85  N.  Y.  413,  39  Am. 
St.   674. 

9  Arata  v.  Tellurium  Gold,  &c., 
Min.  Co.,  65  Cal.  340,  4  Pac.  195. 


119] 


PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


318 


need  the  verification  re-state  the  facts  upon  which  the  claim  is 
based. ^"^  A  member  of  a  firm,^i  or  officer  of  a  corporation  may- 
make  a  verification,  ^-  but  in  such  cases  it  should  show  that  it 
is  sworn  to  in  his  individual  capacity. ^^  It  is  immaterial 
whether  the  affidavit  shows  the  agency  or  not/*  but  it  should 
show  on  its  face  that  it  was  sworn  to.^^  A  substantial  com- 
pliance with  the  statute  in  this  regard  is  all  that  is  required. ^^ 


10  Hayes  v.  Hammond,  162  HI. 
133,  44  N.  E.  422. 

FriTolous. — An  objection  to  a 
mechanic's  lien  claim  that  the 
verification  states  that  the  facts 
stated  therein  are  true,  instead  of 
that  the  claim  is  true,  is  frivol- 
ous. Corbett  v.  Chambers,  109 
Cal.   178,   41   Pac.   873. 

11  San  Diego  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Wooldredge,  90  Cal.  574,  27  Pac. 
431;  McGeever  v.  Harris,  (Ala.), 
41  So.  930. 

12  Cooper  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Delahunt, 
36  Ore.  402,  60  Pac.   1. 

13  McGillivary  v.  Case,  107  Iowa 
17,  77  N.  W.  483;  Montana  Lum- 
ber, &c.,  Co.  V.  Obelisk  Mining, 
&c.,  Co.,  15  Mont.  20,  37  Pac.  897. 

Sufficient. — The  oath  attached 
to  an  "account  of  the  items"  for 
material  furnished,  and  for  which 
a  lien  was  claimed,  recited  that 
"J.  A.  B.,  being  first  duly  sworn," 
and  was  signed  "Capital  City 
Planing  Mills.  Per.  J.  A.  B., 
Sec'y."  The  account  of  the  items 
was  headed,  "M.  to  Capital  City 
Planing  Mills,  Dr."  Held,  it  suf- 
ficiently appeared  that  the  lien 
was  claimed  by  the  Capital  City 
Planing  Mills,  and  not  by  J.  A. 
B.,  and  there  was  a  substantial 
compliance  with  Comp.  St.  c.  54, 
§  3,  providing  for  an  account  veri- 


fied under  oath.  Henry,  &c.,  Co. 
v.  Fisherdick,  37  Neb.  207,  55  N. 
W.  643. 

Defective. — There  is  annexed  lo 
this  lien  what  purports  to  be  a 
verification,  which  is  as  follows: 

" ,  being  duly  sworn,  says 

that  he  is  M.  Kane  &  Son,  the 
lienors  mentioned  in  the  forego- 
ing notice  of  lien;  that  he  has 
read  the  said  notice,  and  knows 
the  contents  thereof;  and  that  the 
statements  contained  are  true  to 
their  knowledge  except  as  to  the 
matter  therein  stated  to  be  al- 
leged on  information  and  belief, 
and  that  as  to  those  matters  they 
believe  it  to  be  true.  M.  Kane 
&  Son."  Kane  v.  HutkofE,  81  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  105,  81  N.  Y.  Supp.  85. 

14  McLaughlin  v.  Schultz,  125 
Mo.  469,  28  S.  W.  755;  Missouri 
Valley  Lumber  Co.  v.  Weber,  4  3 
Mo.  App.  179;  Riter  v.  Houston 
Oil  Refining,  &c.,  Co.,  19  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  516,  48  S.  W.  758.  One  may 
make  it  for  two  joint  claimants. 
Waters  v.  Goddberg,  124  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)   511,  108  N.  Y.  Supp.  992. 

15  Finane  v.  Las  Vegas  Hotel  & 
Improvement  Co.,  3  N.  M.  256,  5 
Pac.   725. 

ic  Alabama,  —  Alabama  State 
Fair,   &c.,  Assn.   v.  Alabama   Gas 


319  CLAIM VERIFICATION.  [§  120 

But  if  there  is  not  such  a  compliance  the  statement  is  void.^'^ 

§  120.     Claim  or  statement — verification,  continued. — If  the 

statute  requires  the  statement  to  show  that  affiant  has  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts  sworn  to,  it  is  fatal  if  it  does  not  state  such 
fact,^  and  it  is  not  cured  by  the  fact  that  the  affiant  really  had 
such  knowledge.^  Some  courts  have  held  that  if  an  agent 
makes  the  oath  it  is  not  sufficient  if  he  makes  it  upon  informa- 
tion and  belief.^     As  a  general  rule,  however,  an  affidavit  made 


Fixture,  &c.,  Co.,  131  Ala.  256,  31 
So.  26. 

Colorado. — Gutshall  v.  Korna- 
ley,  38  Colo.  195,  88  Pac.  158. 

Minnesota, — Nordine  v.  Knut- 
son,  62  Minn.  264,  64  N.  W.  565. 

Missouri. — Williams  v.  Stroub, 
168  Mo.  346,  57  S.  W.  875. 

IVasIiington.  —  Sautter  v.  Mc. 
Donald,  12  Wash.  27,  40  Pac.  418; 
Fairhaven  Land  Co.  v.  Jordan,  5 
Wash.  729,  32  Pac.  729;  Johnston 
V.  Harrington,  5  Wash.  73,  31  Pac. 
316.  Claimant's  verification  to 
the  notice  of  lien  was  that  he 
knew  the  contents  thereof,  and 
that  the  same  were  true,  but  he 
did  not  swear  that  the  "state- 
ments" were  true.  Held,  that 
the  verification,  though  not  in 
statutory  language,  was  a  sub- 
stantial compliance  with  the  law. 
Schwartz  v.  Allen,  7  N.  Y.  Supp.  5. 

17  Illinois. — Orr,  &c..  Hardware 
Co.  V.  Russell,  169  111.  100,  48  N. 
E.  444;  A.  R.  Beck  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Halsey,  41  111.  App.  349. 

>'ew  York — Kane  v.  Hutkoff,  81 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  105,  81  N.  Y. 
Supp.  85. 

Oklahoma. — El  Reno  Electric 
Light,  &c.,  Co.  V.  Jennison.  5  Okla. 
759,   50   Pac.   144. 


South  Carolina.  —  Murphy  v. 
Valk,  30  S.  Car.  262,  9  S.  E.  101. 
Under  Rev.  St.  111.  1889,  c.  82, 
§§  4,  28,  which  provide  that  every 
lien  claimant,  in  order  to  obtain 
a  lien,  must  file  a  statement  "set- 
ting forth  the  times  when  such 
material  was  furnished,  or  labor 
performed,  verified  by  affidavit," 
an  affidavit  stating  that  "the  claim- 
ant has  performed  the  labor  and 
furnished  the  materials,  set  forth 
in  the  above  statement"  is  not 
a  sufficient  verification  to  sustain 
a  lien,  since  it  does  not  verify  the 
dates  given  in  the  statement. 
McDonald  v.  Rosengarten,  134  111. 
126,  35  111.  App.  71,  25  N.  E.  429. 

1  Florence  Bldg.  &  Inv.  Assn.  v. 
Schall,  107  Ala.  531,  18  So.  108; 
Cook  V.  Rome  Brick  Co.,  98  Ala. 
409,  12  So.  918;  Globe  Iron  Roof- 
ing, &c.,  Co.  V.  Thatcher,  87  Ala. 
458,  6  So.  366. 

2  Long  V.  Pocahontas  Coal  Co.. 
117  Ala.  587,  23  So.  526. 

3  Dorman  v.  Crozier,  14  Kan. 
224.  An  affidavit  by  a  contractor 
to  a  statement  for  mechanic's 
lien,  which  Rev.  St.  111.  1889,  c. 
82,  §  4,  required  to  be  "verified 
by  an  affidavit,"  is  sufficient  where 
affiant   says   the   foregoing  state- 


§120] 


PROCEEDINGS   TO   PERFECT   LIEN. 


320 


on  information  and  belief  is  sufficient.-*  Under  other  statutes, 
however,  it  is  required  that  the  matters  must  be  stated  as  of 
fact,^  and  not  to  the  best  of  affiant's  knowledge.^  An  affidavit 
on  knowledge  and  belief  is  not  a  szvorn  statement."  Unless  the 
statute  specifically  requires  that  the  owmer  shall  personally 
make  the  affidavit,^  it  can  be  sworn  to  by  any  one  who  knows 
the  facts.^      Officers  who  are  usually  authorized  to  administer 


ment  is  true,  though  to  this  is 
added,  "to  the  best  of  his  knowl- 
edge and  belief."  Grace  v.  Oak- 
land Bldg.  Assn.,  166  111.  637,  46 
N.  E.  1102.  Sufficient  if  he  follows 
'the  language  of  the  statute. 
Union  Stove  Works  v.  Klingham, 
20  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  449,  46  N.  Y. 
Supp.  721. 

^  Missouri. — ^Finley  v.  West,  51 
Mo.  App.  569;  Crane  Co.  v.  Ep- 
worth  Hotel  Construction  and 
Real  Estate  Co.,  121  Mo.  App. 
2091,  98  S.  W.  295. 

Nebraska. — Chapman  v.  Brew- 
er, 43  Neb.  890,  62  N.  W.  320,  47 
Am.   St.   779. 

New  York. — INIoore  v.  McLaugh- 
lin, 66  Hun  (N.  Y.)  133,  21  N.  Y. 
Supp.  55;  Staubsandt  v.  Lennou, 
3  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  90,  22  N.  Y.  Supp. 
544;  Kealey  v.  Murray,  61  Hun 
(N.  Y.)   619,  15  N.  Y.  Supp.  403. 

5  Childs  V.  Bostwick,  12  Daly 
(N.  Y.)  15,  65  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
146;  Conklin  v.  Wood,  3  E.  I). 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  662.  The  affidavit 
for  a  mechanic's  lien  required  by 
2  Sayles'  Civ.  St.  Tex.  1897,  art. 
339b,  must  be  made  on  affiant's 
knowledge;  "the  best  of  affiant's 
knowledge  and  belief"  not  being 
sufficient.  Merchants',  &e.,  Bank 
V.  Hollis,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App.  479, 
84  S.  W.  269. 


6  Keogh  V.  Main,  50  N.  Y.  Su- 
per. Ct.  183;  Conklin  v.  Wood,  3 
E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.),  662. 

7  Bender  v.  Stettinlus,  10  Ohio 
Dec.   186,  19  W.  L.  Bull.  163. 

8  Hugg  V.  Hintrager,  80  Iowa, 
359,  45  N.  W.  1035;  Ainslle  v. 
Kohn,   16   Ore.   363,   19   Pac.   97. 

9  California. — Jones  v.  Kruse, 
138  Cal.   613,  72  Pac.   146. 

Ohio. — St.  Clair  Building  Assn. 
v.  Hayes,  2  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  225,  1 
Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  456. 

Peniisj  ivania. — Billmeyer  &c., 
Co.  v.  Brubaker,  (1),  (2),  (3),  17 
York   (Pa.),  113,  114,  115. 

South  Dakota. — Fullerton  v. 
Leonard.  3  S.  Dak.  118,  52  N.  W. 
325. 

United  States. — Great  Southern 
Fireproof  Hotel  Co.  v.  Jones,  116 
Fed.  793,  52  C.  C.  A.  165.  A  mem- 
ber of  a  firm.  Cunningham  v. 
Barr,  45  Kan.  158,  25  Pac.  583; 
Deatherage  v.  Woods,  37  Kan.  59, 
14  Pac.  474.  Or  an  agent.  Great 
Western  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hunter,  15 
Neb.  32,  16  N.  W.  759;  Red  River 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Friel,  7  N.  Dak.  46, 
73  N.  W.  203;  Williams  v.  Webb, 
2  Disney  (Ohio)  430.  Or  attorney 
for  a  foreign  corporation  may 
make  the  oath.  Huttig  Bros.  M'll, 
&c.,  Co.  v.  Denny  Hotel  Co.,  6 
Wash.  122,  32  Pac.  1073. 


321 


CLAIM VERIFICATION. 


:§  120 


oaths  may  administer  oath  to  the  claimant. ^'^  The  fact 
that  the  person  who  administered  the  oath  afterward  became 
attorney  of  the  claimant  will  not  affect  the  validity  of  the 
claim. ^1  It  has  been  held  that  a  notary  public  in  another  state 
may  be  a  proper  ofificer  where  his  signature  is  witnessed  by  his 
official  seal. ^2  However,  the  official  must  act  within  his  juris- 
diction.^^  As  a  general  rule,  although  there  are  some  decisions 
to  the  contrary,^^  the  omission  of  the  name  of  the  notary  or 
his  seal  cannot  be  supplied  by  parol  evidence. ^^  The  rule  in 
such  cases  is  that  the  affidavit  must  show  on  its  face  the  official 
character  of  the  person  who  administers  the  oath.^'^  Gener- 
ally if  the  oath  is  administered  in  a  State  other  than  that 
in  which  the  statement  is  filed,  the  act  of  the  officer  should  be 


10  Chandler  v.  Hanna,  73  Ala. 
390.  A  commissioner  to  adminis- 
ter oaths  has  no  power  to  take 
an  affidavit  verifying  a  statement 
of  claim  to  be  filed.  Kelly  v.  Mc- 
Kenzie,  I  Man.  169.  Mechanic's 
lien  claims  may  be  verified  before 
county  recorders.  Arrington  v. 
Wittenberg,  12  Nev.  99. 

iiCarr  v.  Hooper,  48  Kan.  2.53, 
29  Pac.  398;  McMongel  v.  Wilson, 
103  Mich.  264,  61  N.  W.  495. 

12  Wood  V.  St.  Paul  City  Ry.  Co., 
42  Minn.  411,  44  N.  W.  308,  7  J^. 
R.  A.  149;  Phelps  Biglow  Wind- 
mill Co.  V.  Shay,  32  Neb.  19,  48 
N.   W.   896. 

13  Byrd  v.  Cochran,  39  Neb.  109, 
58  N.  W.  127. 

14  Finley  v.  West,  51  Mo.  App. 
569.  Comp.  St.  §  5476,  requiring 
the  statement  of  account  for  a 
mechanic's  lien  to  be  "verified  by 
affidavit,"  does  not  make  the  ac- 
count necessarily  invalid  where 
the  jurat  is  omitted,  since  it  can 
be  shown  by  parol  evidence  that 
the   aflJidavit   was    properly   made 

21 


by  the  affiant.    Turner  v.  St.  John, 
8  N.  Dak.  245,  78  N.  W.  340. 

15  Colman  v.  Goodnow,  36  Minn. 
9,  29  N.  W.  338,  1  Am.  St.  632; 
Knight  V.  Elliott,  22  Minn.  551; 
Hill  V.  Alliance  Bldg.  .Co.,  6  S. 
Dak.  160,  60  N.  W.  752,  55  Am. 
St.  819;  Stetson,  &c..  Mill  Co.  v. 
McDonald,  5  Wash.  496,  32  Pac. 
109. 

16  Cream  City  Furniture  Co.  v. 
Squier,  2  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  438,  21  N. 
Y.  Supp.  972.  An  affidavit  verify- 
ing an  account  for  a  mechanic's 
lien,  taken  in  Pennsylvania,  to  be 
used  in  Minnesota,  the  venue  of 
which  is  a  certain  county  in  Penn- 
sylvania and  which  merely  shows 
that  it  was  sworn  to  before  "T. 
W.  Taylor,  Clerk,  Q.  S.,"  with  a 
seal  stamped  "Quarter  Sessions 
Court,"  is  insufficient,  since  the 
affidavit  should  show  on  its  face 
both  the  offi.cial  character  of  the 
officer  before  whom  it  is  sworn 
to,  and  his  authority  to  adminis- 
ter oaths.  Hickey  v.  Collom,  47 
Minn.  565,  50  N.  W.  918. 


§  120]  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN.  322 

authenticated  under  the  general  Acts  of  Congress.^"  Where 
the  statement  is  filed  in  the  office  of  the  person  administering 
the  oath,  it  will  not  invalidate  the  claim  if  such  official  should 
fail  to  attach  his  seal.^*  And  under  some  statutes  it  is  suffi- 
cient if  the  notary  merely  certifies  that  the  "claimant  made 
oath  to  the  correctness  of  the  account.''^^  Where  copies  are 
made  and  served,  the  fact  that  the  jurat  on  the  copy  is  defi- 
cient, will  not  affect  the  claim  if  it  is  correct  in  the  original.^o 
As  a  general  rule,  the  verification  is  a  part  of  the  claim  and  can 
not  be  corrected  after  the  time  for  filing  of  the  statement  is 
expired,2i  ^j^^j  ^j^g  question  being  jurisdictional,  can  be  raised 
on  trial.2- 

§  121.  Claim  or  statement — errors  and  defects. — Courts  are 
inclined  to  deal  leniently  with  defects  and  errors  that  may  ap- 
pear in  a  claim  or  statement,  and  if  they  are  only  slight,  and 
the  meaning  intended  is  evident  and  can  easily  be  ascertained, 
they  will  be  remedied.^  No  mistake  will  be  considered  ma- 
terial if  enough  remains  to  show  a  substantial  compliance  with 

1"  Lockhead  v.  Berkeley  Springs  El  Reno  Electric  Light,  &c.,  Co.  v. 

&c.,    Co.,    40    W.    Va.    553,    21    S.  Jennison,  5  Okla.  759,  50  Pac.  144. 

E.  1031.    The  failure  of  officer  to  Jfot  demurrable. — A     complaint 

sign  jurat  does  not  defeat.     Dob-  for  lien  is  not  demurrable  on  the 

son  V.  Thurman,  30  Ky.  L.   1331,  ground    that    it    does    not   appear 

101  S.  W.  310.  that  the  seal  of  the  notary  before 

18  Wheelock  v.  Hull,  124  Iowa  whom  verification  of  the  lien  no- 
752,  100  N.  W.  863;  Laswell  v.  tice  was  taken  was  attached 
Presbyterian  Church  of  Jefferson  thereto,  where  the  copy  of  the 
City,  46  Mo.  279.  notice    set   out  bears     the     word 

19  Taylor  v.  Netherwood,  91  Va.  "seal"  after  the  notary's  name, 
88,  20  S.  E.  888.  but    has    no    impression      of     his 

20  Hassett  v.  Rust,  64  Mo.  325.  seal.       Griffith     v.     Maxwell,     20 

21  McGillivray  v.  District  Tp.,  96  Wash.  403,  55  Pac.  571. 

Iowa,  629,  65  N.  W.  974.  i  Alabama. — Lane     &c.,     Co.     v. 

22  Conklin     v.    Wood,     3   E.    D.      Jones,  79  Ala.  156. 

Smith,    (N.   Y.)    662.  California.— McDonald  v.  Back- 

Cnred    by    amendment — Where  us,  45  Cal.  262. 

the  verification  is  defective  mere-  Colorado. — Bitter       v.       Mouat 

ly  because  too  restricted,  the  de-  Lumber,  &c.,  Co.,  27  Colo.  120,  51 

feet  may  be  cured  by  amendment.  Pac.   519. 


Z2^ 


CLAIM ERRORS  AND  DEFECTS. 


[§121 


the  statute,  and  that  no  one  was  misled.^  If  the  error,  how- 
ever, is  material,  knowledge  that  another  has  a  right  will 
not  cure  the  claimant's  omission  to  assert  his  own  right.^  The 
omission  of  a  statutory  requirement  is  a  material  and  fatal 
one,'*  wdiich  even  a  judgment  will  not  cure;  the  condition  is  a 
condition  precedent  to  the  lien  right,  and  is  jurisdictional.^ 
Even  if  the  error  may  otherwise  be  one  which  could  be  reme- 
died, yet  if  it  is  a  fraudulent  misstatement,  the  court  will  de- 


Io"?Ta. — Green  Bay  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Miller,  98  Iowa  468,  62  N.  W. 
742. 

Massachusetts. — Muto  v.  Smith, 
175  Mass.  175,  55  N.  E.  1041. 

Minnesota, — Coughlan  v.  Lon- 
gini,  77  Minn.  514,  80  N.  W. 
695;  Miller  v.  Condit,  52  Minn.  455, 
55  N.  W.  47. 

Jfew  York. — Tibbits  v.  Phipps, 
30  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  274,  51  N.  Y. 
S.    954. 

Pennsylvania. — Hays  v.  Tryon, 
2  Miles  (Pa.)  208.  Under  Code, 
§  3092,  requiring  that  a  statement 
of  account  be  attached  to  the  af- 
fidavit for  a  mechanic's  lien  set- 
ting forth  the  time  when  the  dif- 
ferent items  thereon  were  fur- 
nished, mere  inaccuracies  in  fix- 
ing the  time  do  not  defeat  the 
lien.  Johnson  v.  Otto,  105  Iowa 
605,  75  N.  W.  492.  In  a  petition 
to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien,  the 
Christian  name  of  the  respondent 
was  James,  but  the  certificate 
stated  it  as  "John,"  with  a  line 
drawn  across  the  last  three  let- 
ters. The  fact  that  name  was  er- 
roneously recorded  as  John  did 
not  prevent  an  enforcement  of 
the  lien.  Getchell  v.  Moran,  124 
Mass.  404.  Where  a  party  has 
furnished    materials    for    the    im- 


provement of  real  property,  and  in 
all  respects  has  complied  with 
the  mechanic's  lien  law  in  respect 
thereto,  his  rights  will  not  be  de- 
stroyed, merely  because,  in  taking 
a  note  for  the  amount  due,  he 
has  described  himself  by  the 
fanciful  designation  of  the 
"Western  Cornice  Works,"  when 
there  is  no  claim  that,  thereby, 
any  one  was  misled  or  injured. 
Livesey  v.  Hamilton,  47  Neb.  644, 
66  N.  W.  644.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  157. 

2  Schroth  V.  Black,  50  111.  App. 
168;  O'Shea  v.  O'Shea,  91  Mo.  App. 
221. 

3  Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Des 
Moines  Driving  Park,  97  Iowa  25, 
65  N.  W.  1017;  Holmes  v.  Hutch- 
ins,  38  Neb.  601,  57  N.  W.  514.  If 
the  form  of  a  mechanic's  lien  is 
fatally  defective,  actual  notice  to 
parties  claiming  adversely  to  it 
will  not  cure  the  defect.  In  re 
Well's  Estate,  2  Del.  Co.  (Pa.) 
172;  Fairhaven  Land  Co.  v.  Jor- 
dan, 5  Wash.  729,  32  Pac.  729. 

4  Denver  Hardware  Co.  v. 
Croke,  4  Colo.  App.  530,  36  Pac. 
624  Luscher  v.  Morris,  18  Abb. 
N.  Cas.   (N.  Y.)  67. 

5  Holland  v.  Garland,  13  Phila. 
(Pa.)   544. 


121] 


PROCEEDINGS   TO   PERFECT   LIEN. 


324 


cline  to  remedy  it.*^  If  the  misstatement  is  clearly  an  imma- 
terial one,  it  will  not  ordinarily  affect  the  lien  right."  If  inad- 
vertently,^ or  honestly  made,  and  no  one  is  wronged,  the  error 
is  not  fatal. ^  Thus,  even  though  the  statute  requires  the  date 
of  the  items  to  be  given,  yet  if  by  accident  and  mistake  without 
fraud  the  items  are  erroneously  stated,  and  on  the  trial  of  the 
case  the  evidence  shows  that  they  were  all  furnished  within 
the  time  limit,  the  lien  would  be  enforced.^*^  If  the  parties 
have  actual  knowledge,  they  can  not  complain  of  errors  in  the 
dates,  and  if  one  item  is  within  the  time  limit  the  lien  will  not 


.  G  Christian  v.  Allee,  104  111. 
App.  177;  St.  Croix  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Davis,  105  Iowa  27,  74  N.  W.  756; 
Hannah  &  Lay  Mercantile  Co.  v. 
Mosser,  105  Mich.  18,  62  N.  W. 
1120;  Gibbs  v.  Hanchetti,  90  Mich. 
657.  We  think  the  rule  so  gen- 
erally established  is  a  proper  one, 
and  should  be  adopted  by  this 
court.  There  certainly  can  be  no 
hardship  in  requiring  a  claimant 
to  avoid  intentionally  and  wilful- 
ly making  an  exaggerated  claim 
which  he  knows  not  to  exist. 
The  requirement  that  he  shall 
truthfully  state  his  claim  is  in  no 
way  unjust  to  the  claimant,  but 
it  is  pre-eminently  just  to  the 
owner,  to  other  claimants  or  lien- 
ors and  to  those  who  are  engaged 
in  administering  the  Lien  Law. 
We  are,  therefore,  of  the  opinion 
that  the  trial  court,  having  found 
that  the  plaintiffs  "enormously  ex- 
aggerated" their  claim  and  inten- 
tionally and  by  pretense  of  a  fic- 
titious contract  sought  to  enforce 
and  establish  a  false  and  fabri- 
cated demand,  was  justified  in 
holding  that  the  plaintiffs  had 
thereby  forfeited  their  right  to  re- 


cover any  judgment  against  the 
sureties  upon  the  bond  in  ques- 
tion. Aeschlimann  v.  Presbyter- 
ian Hospital,  165  N.  Y.  296. 

"  Ringle  v.  Wallis  Iron  Works, 
4  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  15,  24  N.  Y.  Supp. 
757. 

s  Ewing  V.  Stockwell,  106  Iowa 
26,  75  N.  W.  657;  McAlister  v.  Des 
Rochers,  132  Mich.  381,  93  N.  W. 
887,  9  Det.  Leg.  N.  645;  Barnacle 
V.  Henderson,  42  Neb.  169,  60  N. 
W.  382. 

9  Illinois.— Kendall  v.  Fader,  99 
111.  App.  104. 

Iowa. — Lee  v.  Hoyt,  101  Iowa 
101,  70  N.  W.  95. 

Missouri. — Eau  Claire-St.  Louis 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Fray,  81  Mo.  App. 
337. 

'Se^y  York. — American  Mortg. 
Co.  v.  Butler,  36  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
253,  73  N.  Y.  Supp.  334;  Ringle 
V.  Wallis  Iron  Works,  4  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)   15.  24  N.  Y.  Supp.  757. 

Oregon. — Cooper  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Delahunt,  36  Ore.  402,  60  Pac.  1. 

I'l  California. — Boscow  v.  Pat- 
ton,  136  Cal.  90,  68  Pac.  490. 

Iowa, — St.    Croix    Lumber    Co. 


325 


CLAIM ERRORS  AND  DEFECTS. 


[§121 


be  absolutely  void.^^  It  has  also  been  held  that  the  fact  that 
the  claim  was  for  more  than  is  actually  due,  if  not  made  with 
fraudulent  intent,  will  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  lien. ^2     And 


V.  Davis,  105  Iowa  27,  74  N.  W. 
756. 

Maryland. — Treusch  v.  Shry- 
ock,    55   Md.   330. 

Michigau. — Union  Trust  Co.  v. 
Casserly,  127  Mich.  183,  86  N.  W. 
545,   8  Det.  Leg.  N.  278. 

Minnesota. — Coughlan  v.  Lon- 
gini,  77  Minn.  514,  80  N.  W.  695: 
Linne  v.  Stout,  41  Minn.  483,  43 
N.  W.   377. 

Missouri. — Baltis  v.  Friend,  90 
Mo.  App.  408.  Not  within  the  true 
limit.  May  &c..  Brick  Co.  v. 
General  Engineering  Co.,  76  111. 
App.  380. 

Different  order. — Where,  as 
against  the  owner  of  property 
one  is  entitled  to  lien  for  all  the 
items  included  in  his  statement 
for  lien,  his  entire  right  to  lien 
as  against  an  incumbrancer  is 
not  defeated  on  the  ground  that 
the  statement  was  not  just  and 
correct,  because  some  of  the 
items  were  furnished  under  an 
order  no  items  of  which  were 
furnished  within  90  days  of  fil- 
ing statement.  Chase  v.  Garver 
Coal  &  Min.  Co.,  90  Iowa  25,  57 
N.    W.    648. 

11  Brockmeier  v.  Dette,  58  Mo. 
App.  607. 

12  Ala)»ama.  —  Alabama  &c., 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Tisdale,  139  Ala. 
250,  36  So.  618. 

California.  —  Snell  v.  Payne, 
115  Cal.  218,  46  Pac.  1069;  Har- 
mon V.  San  Francisco  &c.,  R.  Co., 
86  Cal.   617,  25  Pac.   124,  22  Pac. 


407;  Barber  v.  Reynolds,  44  Cal. 
519. 

Connecticut. — Marston  v.  Ken- 
yon,  44  Conn.  349;  Hopkins  v. 
Forrester,  39  Conn.  351. 

Illinois. — Rockwell  v.  O'Brien- 
Green   Co.,   62   111.   App.   293. 

Indiana. — Harrington  v.  Doll- 
man,  64  Ind.  255. 

Iowa. — Ewing  v.  Stockwell, 
106  Iowa  26,  75  N.  W.  657;  Sim- 
onson  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Citizens' 
State  Bank,  105  Iowa  264,  74  N. 
W.  995. 

Massachusetts. — Smith  v.  Nor- 
ris,  120  Mass.  58. 

Michigan.  —  Hulburt  v.  Just, 
126  Mich.  337,  85  N.  W.  872,  8 
Det.  Leg.  N.  46;  Fairbairn  v. 
Moody,  116  Mich.  61,  74  N.  W. 
386;  Scheibner  v.  Cohnen,  108 
Mich.  165,  65  N.  W.  760 ;  McMone- 
gal  V.  Wilson,  103  Mich.  264,  61 
N.  W.  495;  Lamont  v.  La  Fevre, 
96  Mich.  175,  55  N.  W.  687. 

Missouri. — Heamann  v.  Porter, 
35  Mo.  137. 

New  York. — Gaskell  v.  Beard, 
58  Hun  (N.  Y.)  101,  11  N.  Y. 
Supp.  399;  Morgan  v.  Taylor,  15 
Daly  (N.  Y.)  304,  5  N.  Y.  Supp. 
920. 

IVorth  Dakota. — Turner  v.  St. 
John,  8  N.  Dak.  245,  78  N.  W. 
340 

Ohio. — Thomas  v.  Huesman,  10 
Ohio   St.   152. 

Oregon. — Fitch  v.  Howitt,  32 
Ore.  396,  52  Pac.  192;  Allen  v. 
Elwert,  29  Ore.  428,  44  Pac.  823, 
48    Pac.    54;    Harrisburg   Lumber 


121] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT  LIEN. 


326 


the  same  rule  is  applied  where  the  description  covers  more  land 
than  should  be  included,^^  provided  that  the  property  which 
is  properly  charged  can  be  segregated  from  the  excess. ^^  But 
if  the  party  knowingly  files  a  claim  for  a  larger  amount  or 
knowingly  confuses  his  items,  it  is  not  a  "true  and  just  state- 
ment" and  is  void.^'^  The  claimant  must  exercise  proper  and 
reasonable  care  in  his  endeavor  to  make  a  true  statement,^*^  and 
if  the  amount  claimed  should  be  excessively  large/^  and  no 
explanation  is  given  of  this  fact,  the  presumption  will  be  that 


Co.  V.  Washburn,  29  Ore.  150,  44 
Pac.   390. 

Rhode  Island.  —  Murphy  v. 
Guisti,   22   R.   I.   588,  48  Atl.   944. 

United  States. — Springer  Laud 
Assn.  V.  Ford,  168  U.  S.  513,  42 
L.  ed.  561,  18  Sup.  Ct.  170;  Hoov- 
en,  &c.,  Co.  V.  John  Feather- 
stone's  Sons,  111  Fed.  81,  49  C. 
C.  A.  229.  Good  as  to  items 
within  time.  Pace  v.  Yost,  9  Kulp 
(Pa.)  357.  A  notice  of  lien 
correctly  stating  the  whole 
amount  due  plaintiff  but  inaccur- 
ate in  stating  that  such  amount 
was  due  on  the  original  contract, 
whereas  some  of  the  articles 
were  furnished  on  subsequent 
orders,  is  valid  as  to  the  value  of 
the  materials  actually  furnished 
under  the  contract  stated  in  the 
notice,  the  mis-statement  not  be- 
ing made  with  intent  to  deceive 
or  defraud.  Continental  Build- 
ing &  Loan  Assn.  v.  Hutton,  144 
Cal.  609,  78  Pac.  21.  A  notice  of  me- 
chanic's lien,  filed  before  the  com- 
pletion of  the  work,  including  in 
the  total  amount  unpaid  all  that  is 
to  become  due,  as  well  as  what 
is  already  due,  if  it  correctly 
states  how  much  of  the  total  be- 
longs to  each  class    (Laws  N.  Y. 


1885,  c.  342,  §4),  could  not  fall 
within  the  condemnation  visited 
upon  knowingly  false  state- 
ments. Tibbits  v.  Phipps,  163  N. 
Y.  580,  57  N.  E.  1126. 

13  Shattuck  V.  Beardsley,  46 
Conn.  386;  Underwood  v.  Wal- 
cott,  3  Allen  (Mass.)  464;  West- 
ern Iron  Works  v.  Montana  Pulp 
&  Paper  Co.,  30  Mont.  550,  77  Pac. 
413. 

1^  Othenin  v.  Brown,  66  Mo. 
App.   318. 

15  Iowa. — Stubbs  v.  Clarinda 
C.  S.  &c..  Co.,  65  Iowa  513,  22 
N.   W.    654. 

Massachusetts. — Hubbard  v. 
Brown,  90  Mass.  590. 

Missouri. — Utholf  v.  Gerhard, 
42    Mo.    App.   256. 

New  York. — Aeschlimann  v. 
Presbyterian  Hospital,  165  N.  Y. 
296,  59  N.  E.  148;  New  Jersey 
Steel  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Robinson,  85 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  512,  83  N.  Y. 
Supp.   450. 

16  Brennan  v.  Miller,  97  Mich. 
185;  Gibbs  v.  Hanchette,  90  Mich. 
657,  51  N.  W.   691. 

1"  New  Jersey  Steel  &  Iron  Co. 
V.  Robinson,  83  N.  Y.  Supp.  450, 
85  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    512. 


327 


CLAIM ERRORS  AND  DEFECTS. 


[§  122 


it  is  fraudulent. ^^  But  if  the  excess  is  small,^''  or  there  is  a 
clear  clerical  error,  there  will  be  no  such  presumption.^^'  The 
claim  will  be  upheld  if  no  one  is  prejudiced  by  the  excessive 
claim  or  misstatement,^^  unless  there  is  a  specific  statutory 
provision  that  such  a  statement  is  void.-^ 

§  122.     Claim  or  statement — error  and  defects,  continued. — 

The  mere  fact  that  the  claim  contains  items  for  materials  that 
were  not  used  in  the  building,  will  not  defeat  the  lien.^  And 
as  a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that  before  the  lien  will  be 
held  void  on  this  sfround  the  items  must  have  been  inserted  for 


IS  Williams  v.  Daiker,  63  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  614,  71  N.  Y.  Supp. 
247. 

19  Union  Ti'ust  Co.  v.  Casserly, 
127  Mich.  183,  86  N.  W.  545,  8 
Det.  Leg.  N.  278;  Pierson  v. 
Jackman,  47  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  625, 
62  N.  Y.  Supp.  1145. 

20  Snell  V.  Payne,  115  Cal.  218, 
46  Pac.  1069. 

siAlbreclit  v.  C.  C.  Foster 
Lumber  Co.,  126  Ind.  318,  26  N. 
E.  157.  A  mechanic's  lien  was 
filed  for  $9,150 — the  amount  due 
if  the  contract  had  been  carried 
out.  The  notice  recited  that  all 
the  materials  for  which  the 
lien  was  claimed,  had  been  fur- 
nished, except  materials  of  a 
value  not  to  exceed  $6,650.  The 
amount  actually  due  was  $2,500, 
and  the  release  bond  was  for  $3,- 
000.  Held,  that  the  lien  was  not 
fraudulent  in  exaggerating  the 
amount  due,  and  void,  as  the 
claim  as  to  the  amount  due  was 
a  mistake,  not  harmful  to  the 
owners,  as  evidenced  by  the 
amount  of  the  bond  given.  Beat- 
tys  V.  Searles,  74  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)   214,  77  N.  Y.  Supp.  497. 


22  Schallert-Ganahl  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Neal,  91  Cal.  362,  27  Pac.  743. 

1  Michigan. — Union  Trust  Co.  v. 
Casserly,  127  Mich.  183,  86  N.  W. 
545,   8   Det.   Leg.   N.   278. 

Missouri. — Western  Brass  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Mepham,  2  Mo.  App.  920, 
64  Mo.  App.  50. 

New  York. — Pierson  v.  Jackman, 
27  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  425,  58  N.  Y. 
Supp.  344;  Goodrich  v.  Gillies,  82 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  18,  31  N.  Y.  Supp. 
76;  Gaskell  v.  Beard,  58  Hun  (N. 
Y.)   101,  11  N.  Y.  Supp.  399. 

Washington. — Bolster  v.  Stocks, 
13  Wash.  460,  43  Pac.  534;  Peter- 
man  V.  Milwaukee  Brewing  Co., 
11  Wash.  199,  39  Pac.  452. 

Tools. — The  inclusion  errone- 
ously, but  in  good  faith,  in  a  ma- 
terialman's notice  of  lien,  of  a 
claim  for  tools  furnished  the  con- 
tractor with  which  to  work  on 
the  building,  does  not  invalidate 
the  notice.  Evans  v.  Lower  67 
N.  J.  Eq.  232,  58  Atl.  294.  Items  in 
a  claim  for  such  material  as  did 
not  enter  into  the  structure  of 
the  building  will  be  eliminated 
from   the   claim;    such  items   will 


122] 


PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


328 


a  fraudulent  purpose.-  But  if  the  statement  is  so  glaringly 
untrue  as  to  show  gross  negligence  the  presumption  is  that  it 
is  fraudulent,  and  this  presumption  is  not  excused  on 
the  ground  of  haste  in  drafting  the  statement.^  And  so  the 
mere  inclusion  of  non-lienable  items  in  the  statement,^  if  put 
there  by  mistake,  and  without  wrong  intent,  will  not  vitiate 
the  lien,^  unless  the  lienable  and  non-lienable  items  are  so  in- 
termingled that  they  cannot  be  separated.^     Before  the  matter 


not  invalidate  the  whole  claim. 
Walter  &  Sons  v.  Powell,  13 
Dist.   (Pa.)   667. 

2  Pacific  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Fisher,  106  Cal.  224,  39  Pac.  758; 
Midland  Lumber  Co.  v.  Kreeger, 
52  IMo.  App.  418;  Goodrich  v.  Gil- 
lies, 66  Hun  (N.  Y.)  422,  21  N.  Y. 
Supp.  400. 

3  Wagner  v.  Hansen,  103  Cal. 
104,  37  Pac.  195;  Williams  v. 
Daiker,  33  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  70,  6S 
N.   Y.    Supp.   348. 

4  Connecticut.  —  Bank  of 
Charleston  v.  Curtiss,  18  Conn. 
3,42,   46  Am.  Dec.   325. 

loTva, — Nancolas  v.  Hitaffer,  136 
Iowa  341,  112  N.  W.  382. 

Minnesota. — Dennis  v.  Smith, 
38   Minn.   494,  38   N.  W.   695. 

Missouri. — Walden  v.  Robert- 
son, 120  Mo.  38,  25  S.  W.  349;  Al- 
len V.  Frumet  Mining  &  Smelting 
Co.,  73  Mo.  688;  Price  v.  Merritt, 
55  Mo.  App.  640;  Pullis  v.  Hoff- 
man, 28  Mo.  App.  666;  Johnson 
V.  Barnes  &  Morrison  Bldg.  Co., 
23  Mo.  App.  546. 

Xevada. — Maynard  v.  Ivey,  21 
Nev.  241,  29  Pac.  1090. 

Pennsylvania,  —  Simpson  v. 
Cameron,  3  Pa.  Dist.  612,  25 
Pittsb.  Leg.  J.   62. 

Wisconsin. — North  v.  La  Flesh, 
73  Wis.  520,  41  N.  W.  633. 


5  Wolfley  V.  Hughes,  8  Ariz. 
203,  71  Pac.  951;  Culver  v. 
Schroth,  153  111.  437,  39  N.  E. 
115. 

0  Arizona. — Wolfley  v.  Hughes, 
8  Ariz.  203,  71  Pac.  951. 

California, — McClain  v.  Hutton, 
131  Cal.  132,  61  Pac.  273. 

Colorado. — Cannon  v.  Williams, 
14   Colo.   21,   23   Pac.   456. 

Maine. — Baker  v.  Fessenden, 
71   Me.   292. 

Missouri. — Edgar  v.  Salisbury, 
17  Mo.  271;  O'Brien  Boiler  Works 
Co.  V.  Haydock,  59  Mo.  App.  653; 
Dugan  Cut  Stone  Co.  v.  Gray,  43 
Mo.  App.  671;  Schulenburg  & 
Boeckler  Lumber  Co.  v.  Strimple, 
33  Mo.  App.  154;  McLaughlin  v. 
Schawacker,  31  Mo.  App.  365; 
Murphy  v.  Murphy,  22  Mo.  App. 
18;  Nelson  v.  Withrow,  14  Mo. 
App.    270. 

Oreg-on. — Allen  v.  Elwert,  29 
Ore.  428,  44  Pac.  823,  48  Pac.  54. 

South  Dakota.  —  Stokes  v. 
Green,  10  S.  Dak.  286,  73  N.  W. 
100.  The  fact  that  a  claim  of 
lien  for  material  used  in  a  build- 
ing includes  material  used  in  a 
sidewalk  around  the  lot  on  which 
the  building  is  located  will  not 
invalidate  the  lien,  where  an 
itemized  statement  in  the  claim 
renders   it   possible   to   determine 


329  CLAIM ERRORS  AND  DEFECTS.  [§  122 

was  changed  by  statute  the  Massachusetts  courts  held,  how- 
ever, that  the  commingling  of  such  items,  even  if  separable, 
would  not  be  a  "true  account  of  the  debt,"'^  but  later,  under 
other  statutes,  they  held  otherwise.^  The  general  rule  where 
the  matters  are  separable  is  that  the  lien  may  be  enforced  to 
the  extent  of  the  lienable  items.^  The  mere  fact  alone  that 
lienable  and  non-lienable  items  are  included  in  one  statement, 
is  no  evidence  of  fraud. ^"^  But  if  the  claim  is  grossly  exorbi- 
tant and  manifestly  ill-founded,^^  or  the  non-lienable  items  are 
knowingly  included,^^  the  presumption  is  that  they  were  fraud- 
ulently inserted,  and  this  fact  may  vitiate  the  entire  lien.^^ 
Where  lienable  and  non-lienable  items  have  been  put  in  a  lien 
statement,  and  no  fraud  is  shown  and  payments  have  been 
made  which  have  not  been  applied  by  the  parties,  the  courts 
will  apply  them  to  the  non-lienable  items  first. ^'^  The 
fact  that  the  statement  includes  the  names  of  persons  having 
no  interest  in  the  matter  will  not  invalidate  it.^^  As  a  person 
making  out  an  account  ought  to  know  what  credits  are  justly 
due  thereon,  the  courts  have  been  somewhat  less  inclined  to 

the    exact   amount   used     in     the  Waymard      v.      Mining     Co.,      30 

sidewalk,        and        the        precise  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.   (N.  S.)    (Pa.)  96. 

amount    charged    therefor.      Har-  lo  Powell    v.    Nolan,    27    Wash, 

risburg  Lumber  Co.  v.  Washburn,  318,  67  Pac.  712.     See  Dec.  &  Am. 

29    Ore.    150,   44   Pac.    390;    Coch-  Dig.   tit.   Mechanic's   Liens,    §157. 

ran  v.  Baker,  34  Ore.  555,  56  Pac.  n  Bank  v.  Redman,  57  Me.  405; 

641.  McPherson    v.    Walton,    42    N.    J. 

7  Truesdall    v.    Gay,      13      Gray  Eq.   282,   11  Atl.   21. 

(Mass.)   311.  12  stubbs    v.    Railroad    Co.,    65 

8  Hubbard   v.   Brown,    8     Allen,      Iowa  513,  22  N.  W.  654;  Lynch  v. 
(Mass.)    590;    Whitford  v.  Newell,      Cronan,  6  Gray   (Mass.)   531. 

2  Allen,  (Mass.)  424;  Parker  v.  i3  Boiler  Works  Co.  v.  Hay- 
Bell,  7  Gray    (Mass.)    429.  dock,    59   Mo.   App.   653;    Allen  v. 

9  Gordon  Hardware   Co.   v.   San  Elwert,  29   Ore.  428,  44  Pac.  823, 
Francisco,    &c.,    R.    Co.,    86    Cal.  48    Pac.    54. 

620,  25  Pac.  125;   Malone  v.  Min-  i4  Cuer  v.  Ross,  49  Wis.  652,  6 

ing  Co.,  76  Cal.  578,  18  Pac.  772;  N.  W.  331. 

Ittner  v.  Hughes,  133  Mo.  679,  34  is  Interstate    Building    &    Loan 

S.    W.    1110;    McCristal    v.    Coch-  Assn.  v.  Ayers,  71  111.  App.  529. 
ran,  147  Pa.  St.  225,  23  Atl.  444; 


122]  PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN.  330 


excuse  an  omission  of  credits,  even  if  left  out  by  mistake,  than 
other  omitted  or  mistaken  matters,  and  they  generally  hold 
that  an  omission  of  a  proper  credit  is  a  fraud  which  will  vitiate 
the  statement.^*'  But  even  the  omission  of  certain  items  of 
credit,  if  the  mistake  did  not  work  a  fraud  on  anyone,  may  be 
excused.  In  such  a  case  all  the  facts  should  be  submitted  for 
determination  in  the  trial  of  the  case.^~  If  the  statement  is 
made  in  good  faith  and  the  omission  occurs  without  wilfulness 
or  neglect, 1*  and  especially  where  the  transactions  are  numer- 
ous, this  fact  will  not  ordinarily  defeat  a  recovery  on  the  state- 
ment.^^ The  parties  interested  might  waive  errors  in  the 
statement  or  so  act  as  to  cure  them  where  there  is  no  fraud, 
and  the  parties  to  be  charged  are  fully  informed  of  what  is 
meant  and  intended.-*^  It  has  been  held,  for  example,  that  a 
party  who  rejects  or  specifically  contests  a  claim  on  one  ground 
cannot  complain  of  other  defects  therein.-^  So  if  objection  to 
defects  is  not  made  on  trial,  it  is  held  to  amount, to  a  waiver  of 
them,  and  the  objection  cannot  be  made  thereafter.22  The 
fact  that  the   deiendants   put   in   evidence   the   claim   as   filed 

16  Lane  &  Bodley  Co.  v.  Jones,  statement  of  a  mechanic's  lien 
79  Ala.  156;  Lynch  v.  Cronan,  6  relating  to  matters  not  recover- 
Gray,  Mass.  531;  Hoffman  v.  Wal-  able  as  such  may  be  treated  as 
ton.  36  Mo.  613;  Nicolai  Bros.  Co.  surplusage.  Day  v.  Chapman,  88 
V.   Van   Fridagh,    23    Ore.    149,    31  111.    App.    358. 

Pac.  288.     Not  invalidated  unless  20  Bastrup   v.    Prendergast,    179 

in   bad   faith.     Culmer     v.   Caine,  111.    553,    53   N.    E.   995. 

22  Utah  216,  61  Pac.  1008.  21  Buckley   v.    Taylor,    51   Ark., 

17  McCormack  v.  Phillips,  4  302.  11  S.  W.  281.  Under  the  law 
Dak.  506,  34  N.  W.  39;  Sexton  v.  of  1851,  after  the  defendant  has 
Weaver,  141  Mass.  273,  6  X.  E.  appeared  and  contested  the  claim 
367;  Schroeder  v.  Mueller,  33  Mo.  upon  the  ground  that  nothing 
App.  28.  was  due  by  him  to  the  contractor, 

18  Frohlich  v.  Carroll,  127  Mich.  it  does  not  lie  with  him  to  ob- 
561,  86  N.  W.  1034,  8  Det.  Leg.  N.  ject  that  the  name  of  the  con- 
458;  Rowland  v.  Harmon,  24  tractor  was  not  in  the  notice  of 
Ore.  529,  34  Pac.  357.  the  claim.     McBride  v.  Crawford, 

19  Hayes  v.   Hammond,   162   W  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  658. 

133,  44  N.  E.  422.     Portions  of  th  22  Barrall    v.    Ruberry,    9    Kulp 

(Pa.)    285;    Baker   v.    Winter,    15 


331 


CLAIM ERRORS  AND  DEFECTS. 


[§123 


does  not  prevent  them  from  showing-  that  it  is  defective. ^^  But 
as  a  general  rule,  when  a  paper  is  put  in  evidence,  objections 
must  then  be  made  to  its  sufficiency,  or  they  will  be  deemed 
waived.^-*  So  in  like  manner  objectionable  matters  set  out  in 
the  pleadings  are  deemed  waived  if  not  denied.^^  It  is  held 
to  be  a  fatal  variance  where  the  pleading  alleges  that  all  the 
work  was  done  under  one  contract  and  the  evidence  shows 
that  it  was  done  under  separate  contracts.^'' 

§  123.  Claim  or  statement — amendment. — As  a  general  rule 
a  claim  or  statement  cannot  be  amended  after  the  time  limit 
for  filing  the  same  had  expired,^  and  the  amendment  should 
not  be  allow^ed  where  it  will  materially  interfere  with  inter- 
vening rights.2    If  no  one  is  prejudiced  by  the  proposed  amend- 


Md.   1;    Boyd  v.  Bassett,    61   Hun 
(N.  Y.)    624,  16  N.  Y.  Supp.   10. 

23  Harraan  v.  Cummings,  43  Pa. 
St.    322. 

24  Wheeler  v.  Ralph,  4  Wash. 
617,   30   Pac.   709. 

25  McGlnty  v.  Morgan,  122  Cal. 
103,    54    Pac.    392. 

26  Hooven,  Owens  &  Rentschler 
Co.  V.  Featherstone,  99  Fed.  180. 

^Illinois. — May,  Purington  & 
Bonner  Brick  Co.  v.  General  En- 
gineering Co.,  180  111.  535,  54  N. 
E.   638. 

MissoDri. — Barnett  v.  Clooney, 
68  Mo.  App.  146,  67  Mo.  App. 
664. 

Jfew  York. — Maurer  v.  Bliss,  14 
Daly  (N.  Y.)  150. 

PennsylTania,  —  Wrought-Iron 
Bridge  Co.  v.  York  Mfg.  Co.,  11 
York  Leg.  Rec.  (Pa.)  45;  Lee  v. 
Exeter    Club,    9    Kulp    (Pa.)    209. 

Washington. — Brown  v.  Trim- 
ble, 48  Wash.  270,  93  Pac.  317. 

Wisconsin.  —  Allfree  Manuf'g. 
Co.  V.   Henry,  96  Wis.  327,  71  N. 


W.  370;  Mark  Paine  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Douglas  County  Imp.  Co.,  94 
Wis.  322,  68  N.  W.  1013.  See 
Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,  §  158. 

2Wade  V.  Reitz,  18  Ind.  307; 
J.  C.  Vreeland  Bldg.  Co.  v.  Knick- 
erbocker Sugar  Refining  Co.,  (N. 
J.  L.)  68  Atl.  215.  A  notice  to 
acquire  a  mechanic's  lien  cannot 
be  reformed,  as  a  mortgage 
created  by  the  owner  can  be,  to 
make  it  conform  to  intention. 
Hill  V.  Stagg,  1  Wils.  403.  A  me- 
chenic's  lien  statement,  as  to 
third  persons  who  have  acquired 
rights  and  interests  in  the  land 
covered  thereby  adverse  to  the 
lien  claimant,  cannot  be  amend- 
ed to  the  prejudice  of  the  rights 
of  such  third  persons  after  it 
has  been  filed  in  the  office  of  the 
register  of  deeds,  and  after  the 
expiiration  of  the  time  limited 
by  statutes  for  filing  of  the  same. 
Meehan  v.  St.  Paul,  M.  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   83   Minn.   187,    86   N.   W.    19; 


§  123] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


332 


ment,  it  will  generally  be  allowed  under  equitable  principles.^ 
Indeed,  some  statutes  particularly  authorize  the  amendment 
of  statements  in  cases  where  justice  may  be  subserved  there- 
by,^ and  such  statutes  have  been  held  to  be  constitutional.^ 
But  without  a  statutory  provision  to  that  effect  courts  have 


Williams  v.  Bradford  (N.  J.  Eq.) 
21  All.  331;  In  re  Wells'  Estate, 
2  Del.  Co.  (Pa.)  172.  Under  Gen. 
Laws  (R.  I.)  1896,  c.  206,  pro- 
viding that  a  mechanic's  lien  ori- 
ginates when  the  work  begins 
and  becomes  operative  when  the 
first  notice  is  given,  and 
will  be  lost,  unless  followed  by 
legal  process,  an  omission  in  the 
notice  is  jurisdictional,  and  can- 
not be  amended.  Hawkins  v. 
Boyden,  25  R.  I.  181,  55  Atl.  324. 
Especially  is  this  true  if  any  one 
is  prejudiced  thereby.  Richard- 
son V.  Central  Lumber  Co.,  112 
111.  App.  166;  McGillivray  v. 
Case,  107  Iowa  17,  77  N.  W.  483; 
Wetmore  v.  Royal,  55  Minn.  162, 
56  N.  W.  594;  Bohem  &  Bros.  v. 
Seel,  185  Pa.  St.  382,  39  Atl.  1009, 
42   W.   N.   C.   115. 

3No  one  prejudiced.  Livezey  v. 
Qualey,  14  Montg.  Co.  Law  Rep'r, 
(Pa.)  205;  Aldine  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Butler,  9  Kulp  (Pa.)  33;  Darling- 
ton V.  Eldridge,  88  Mo.  App.  525. 
Subrogation  of  rights.  Alberti 
V.  Moore   (Okla.)   93  Pac.  543. 

^Marjland.  —  Real  Estate  & 
Improvement  Co.  v.  Phillips,  90 
Md.    515,   45   Atl.    174. 

Oklahoma. — El  Reno  Electric 
Light  &  Telephone  Co.  v.  Jen- 
nison,    5    Okla.    759,    50    Pac.    145. 

Pennsjivania,  —  Linden  Steel 
Co.  V.  Imperial  Refining  Co.,  138 
Pa.  10,  20  Atl,  867,  869,  9  L.  R.  A. 


863;  Dill  v.  Gaughan,  9  Kulp 
(Pa.)  384;  Benore  v.  Leonard,  6 
Lack.  Leg.  N.  (Pa.)  52,  9  Pa. 
Dist.  211. 

Rliode  Island. — Murphy  v.  Guis- 
ti,  26  R.  I.  306,  58  Atl.  952. 

Wisconsin. — Lentz  v.  Eimer- 
mann,  119  Wis.  492,  97  N. 
W.  181;  Mark  Paine  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Douglas  Co.  Imp.  Co., 
94  A'^is.  322,  68  N.  W.  1013. 
Un6er  Mechanics'  Lien  Law,  § 
14,  allowing  amendments  to  lien 
claims  on  notice  and  application 
of  the  claimants,  a  lien  claim 
may  be  amended  in  any  particu- 
lars which  do  not  enlarge  th.e 
claim  either  in  amount,  in  the 
estate  to  be  charged,  or  in  the 
persons  to  be  affected,  though  the 
time  for  filing  a  new  claim  has 
expired,  providing  judgment 
has  not  been  entered  on  the  claim. 
American  Brick  &  Tile  Co. 
V.  Drinkhouse,  59  N.  J.  L.  462, 
36  Atl.  1034.  Requisites  of 
Amendment.  An  affidivit  that  a 
proposed  amendment  sought  to 
be  filed  to  a  mechanic's  lien  was 
"conducive  to  justice  and  a  fair 
trial  on  the  merits,"  should  show 
specifically  wherein  the  record 
or  paper  on  file  is  defective,  in- 
correct, or  wanting  in  particu- 
larity or  substance.  Wrought- 
Iron  Bridge  Co.  v.  York  :Mfg.  Co., 
11   York  Leg.  Rec.    (Pa.)    45. 

'>Atkinson  v.  Woodmansee,  68 
Kan.  71,  74  Pac.  640. 


333 


CLAIM — AMENDMENT. 


[§123 


no  right  to  permit  defects  in  claims  or  statements  to  be  cured 
by  matters  set  up  in  the  pleadings.^  And  where  the  statutes 
permit  such  amendments,  they  do  not  act  retrospectively,'^  nor 
will  they  be  applied  to  mechanic's  lien  statements,  unless  the 
statutes  specifically  so  provide.^  More  cannot  be  recovered 
than  is  claimed  in  the  statement.^  Since  there  is  no  general 
power  to  amend,  the  question  as  to  what  defects  are  amenda- 
ble must  be  determined  solely  by  the  statute  that  permits  them 
to  be  made.  As  a  general  rule  any  error  may  be  corrected  by 
amendment  or  by  filing  a  new  claim  before  the  time  limit  has 
expired,^*'  but  not  afterwards. ^^  However,  a  bona  fide  pur- 
chaser without  notice  can  not  be  affected  by  such  an  amend- 
ment.i2  Qf  course  immaterial  defects,  inadvertently  made, 
where  no  one  is  prejudiced,  are  always  amendable. ^-^      Under 


6  Madera  Flume  &  Trading  Co. 
V.  Kendall,  120  Cal.  182,  52  Pac. 
304 ;  May,  Purington  &  Bonner 
Brick  Co.  v.  General  Engineering 
Co.,  180  111.  535,  54  N.  E.  638: 
Morrison,  Merrill  &  Co.  v.  Wil- 
lard,  17  Utah  306,  53  Pac.  832. 
The  appearance  of  defendants  in 
proceedings  to  foreclose  a  lien 
does  not  waive  a  defect  in  the 
notice  of  the  claim.  Beals  v. 
Congregational  B'nai  Jeshurun,  1 
E.  D.  Smith   (N.  Y.)   654. 

TDrinkhouse  v.  American  Brick 
&  Tile  Co.,  29  Vroom  (N.  J.  L.) 
432,  33  Atl.  950;  Vreeland  v. 
Bramhall,  10  Vroom  (N.  J.  L.)  1; 
Fahnestock  v.  Wilson,  95  Pa. 
301;  Spare  v.  Walz,  14  Phila. 
(Pa.)    132. 

8Meehan  v.  St.  Paul,  M.  R.  Co., 
83  Minn.  187,  86  N.  W.   19. 

9Harris  v.  Page,  23  R.  I.  440, 
50   Atl.    859. 

losouth  Missouri  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Wright,  114  Mo.  326,  21  S.  W. 


811;  Hunter  v.  Truckee  Lodge, 
14  Nev.  24;  Vreeland  v.  Boyle, 
8  Vroom  (N.  J.  L.)  346. 

iiMcFarland  v.  Schultz,  168 
Pa.  634,  32  Atl.  94. 

i2Armstrong  v.  Hallowell,  35 
Pa.  485.  A  petition  for  a  me- 
chanic's lien,  which  was  in  good 
faith  filed  within  the  time  re- 
quired by  law,  described  the 
premises  incorrectly.  It  was 
held  proper  to  permit  an  amend- 
ment of  the  petition  as  against 
all  persons  who  had  not  in  the 
meantime  acquired  vested  rights 
in  respect  to  the  premises;  Rev. 
St.  (Wis.),  §  3320,  authorizing  an 
amendment  of  the  petition  in  a 
lien  case.  Sherry  v.  Schraage,  48 
Wis.  93,   4   N.  W.   117. 

isSchaeffer  v.  Rohrbach,  1 
Wilcox  (Pa.)  250.  The  failure  of 
the  notary  before  whom  a  lien 
claim  was  sworn  to  state  his 
place  of  residence  after  his  sig- 
nature and  official  title,  as  re- 
quired   by    1    Hill's    Ann.      Code, 


§123] 


PROCEEDINGS   TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


334 


a  statute  requiring  apportionment  of  amounts  where  a  lien  is 
filed  on  several  buildings,  and  this  was  not  done,  an  amend- 
ment was  permitted  apportioning  the  same.^^  So  an 
amendment  Avas  allowed  where  the  claim  did  not  name  all  the 
debtors,^^  or  did  not  name  them  correctly. ^^  Where  the  stat- 
ute permits  amendments  they  should  be  made  as  the  statute 
requires.^'''  If  properly  amended,  the  statement  becomes  the 
same  as  a  new  and  valid  one,^®  but  not  so  where  fraudulently 
or  falsely  made.^^  And  even  if  the  errors  are  honestly  made 
the  claimant  may  be  estopped  from  amending  to  his  advan- 
tage.^o 


Wash.,  §  333,  may  be  remedied 
by  amendment,  under  Laws 
(Wash.)  1893,  p.  34,  §  5,  permit- 
ting amendments  where  the  in- 
terests of  third  persons  are  not 
affected.  Sullivan  v.  Treen,  13 
Wash.  261,  43  Pac.  38;  Whittier 
V.  Stetson  &  Post  Mill  Co.,  6 
Wash.  190,  33  Pac.  393. 

14 James  v.  Van  Horn,  10  Vroom 
(N.  J.  L.)  353;  iHoffmaster  v. 
Knupp,  15  Pa.  Co.  Ct.    (Pa.)    140. 

i5Hubbell  V.  SchreyeF,  4  Daly 
(N.  Y.)  362,  14  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
284. 

lOGebhard  v  Levering,  14 
Phila.  (Pa.)  120;  Jones  v.  Phil- 
ler,  13  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  (Pa.)  232; 
Hoffa  V.  Homestead  Bldg.  Ass'n, 
3    Pa.   Dist.    (Pa.)    566. 

I'i'A  sub-contractor,  seeking  to 
enforce  a  mechanic's  lien,  filed 
a  statement  which  omitted  the 
owner's  name,  to  which  was  at- 
tached a  verification  signed,  "B., 
per  G.,  claimant."  It  was,  two 
months  after,  changed,  without 
authority,  by  interlineation,  in- 
serting the  owner's  name,  and 
making  the  signature  read:      "G. 


W.  G.,  agent  for  claimant."  Held, 
that  a  complete  verified  state- 
ment, required  by  Civ.  Code 
(Kan.),  art.  27,  §  3,  to  contain 
the  "name  of  the  contractor, 
name  of  the  claimant,"  etc.,  was 
not  filed.  Newman  v.  Brown,  27 
Kan.  117;  Dorman  v.  Crozier,  14 
Kan.  224.  The  amendments  of 
the  mechanic's  lien  authorized 
by  section  14  of  the  mechanic's 
lien  law  need  not  be  sworn  to. 
Drinkhouse  v.  American  Brick  & 
tile  Co.,  29  Vroom  (N.  J.  L.)  432, 
33  Atl.  950. 

ISA  defective  mechanic's  lien, 
filed  and  corrected  within  the 
statutory  period  for  filing,  the 
clerk  indorsing  on  the  record  the 
circumstances  of  the  alteration, 
becomes  thereupon  a  new  and 
valid  lien.  Sarles  v.  Sharlow,  5 
Dak.  100,  37  N.  W.  748;  Arm- 
strong V.  Hallowell,  35  Pa.  485. 

i9May,  Purington  &  Bonner 
Brick  Co.  v.  General  Engineering 
Co.,   76   111.  App.  380. 

20Canton  Roll  &  Machine  Co. 
V.  Rolling  Mill  Co.,  155  Fed.  321. 


335 


CLA I M CAN  CELLATION . 


124 


124.  Claim  or  statement — Cancellation. — It  is  a  well  recog- 
nized doctrine  of  equity  that  where  there  is  a  defective  lien  on 
one's  property,  equity  will  decree  a  cancellation  of  the 
same  if  the  law  provides  no  relief.^  Where,  however/the  stat- 
ute specifically  provides  a  method  for  getting  rid  of  an  errone- 
ous claim  or  statement,  such  provision  must  be  followed. ^  Un- 
der the  Pennsylvania  practice,  where  the  lien  statement  is  de- 
fective, the  proper  procedure  is  to  file  a  motion  to  strike  it  ofif.^ 
In  such  a  motion  all  objections  the  movant  may  have  should  be 
stated,^  and  it  will  only  be  allowed  when  the  lien  statement  is 
plainly  defective  on  its  face.''     A  mere  defect  in  a  single  item,^ 


1  See  §§  189-193.  See  Dec.  & 
Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§160. 

2Baker  v.  Winter,  15  Md.  1.  A 
general  allegation  is  insufficient. 
McGuckin  v.  Coulter,  33  N.  Y. 
Super.  Ct.  (1  Jones  &  S.)  324,  10 
Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  128.  The  pro- 
ceedings cannot  be  brought  be- 
fore the  time  specified.  Fettrich 
V.  Totten,  2  Abb.  Prac.  (N.  S.)  (N. 
Y.)  264;  Madden  v.  Lennon,  23 
Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  79,  50  N.  Y. 
Supp.  690. 

3Scholl  V.  Gerhab,  93  Pa.  346; 
Lybrandt  v.  Eberly,  36  Pa.  347; 
Wolfe  V.  Keeley,  9  Pa.  Dist.  (Pa.) 
515,  Mitchell  v.  Martin,  3  Pittsb. 
(Pa.)  474.  Under  section  23  of 
the  Act  of  June  4,  1901,  an  owner 
may  proceed  by  petition  and  rule 
to  strike  off  the  lien.  Este  v. 
Penna.  R.  R.  Co.,  13  Dist.  (Pa.) 
451;  Harner  v.  Thomas,  10  Dist. 
(Pa.)  487.  The  court  has  dis- 
cretionary power.  Gerard  v. 
Ecker,  33  Pitts.  (Pa.)  293,  12 
Dist.  (Pa.)  332.  Earlier  it  was 
held    that    the    court    has    power. 


Lehman  v.  Thomas,  5  Watts  & 
S.    (Pa.)   262. 

4Benore  v.  Leonard,  6  Lack. 
Leg.  N.  (Pa.)  198. 

^Frick  V.  Gladdings,  30  Leg. 
Int.  (Pa.)  321,  5  Leg.  Gaz.  317, 
10  Phila.  (Pa.)  79;  Hoffmaster  v. 
Knupp,  15  Pa.  Co.  (Pa.)  140.  The 
court  will  not  strike  off  a  me- 
chanic's lien  on  certain  houses, 
though  part  of  the  material  for 
which  the  lien  was  acquired  was 
supplied  to  houses  separated  by 
a  public  street  from  the  houses 
to  which  the  lien  attached,  where 
such  fact  does  not  appear  from 
the  face  of  the  record,  but  is  only 
ascertainable  by  examining  other 
claims  filed  by  the  same  claimant 
against  the  same  property  owner. 
Jeffers  v.  Anderson,  7  Pa.  Dist. 
R.  482,  21  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  294. 

0  McCristal  v.  Cochran,  147  Pa. 
225,  23  Atl.  444,  29  W.  N.  Cas.  340. 
Defective  items  in  a  claim  for 
a  lien  may  be  stricken  out  with- 
out affecting  items  correctly 
stated.  Lee  v.  Exeter  Club,  9 
Kulp   (Pa.)  209. 


§124] 


PROCEEDINGS  TO  PERFECT   LIEN. 


336 


or  a  failure  to  apportion  between  several  houses,"  or  that  some 
third  person  claims  the  property  will  not  suffice.^  After  a 
plea  has  been  made  by  defendant  it  is  generally  regarded  as 
too  late  to  move  to  strike  off.^  But  some  statutes  recognize 
the  practice  of  entertaining  a  motion  to  strike  off  where  the  lien 
statement  is  defective,  after  an  action  to  enforce  the  same  has 
been  commenced.^*' 


7Pace  V.  Yost,  9  Kulp  (Pa.) 
357;  May  v.  Creasi,  8  Kulp  (Pa.) 
360. 

sCutter  V.  Magaw,  23  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
(Pa.)  475.  The  contractor  has  no 
standing  to  demand  that  a  lien 
filed  by  a  sub-contractor  shall 
be  stricken  off  for  any  reason. 
Cordes  v.  Ralston,  12  Dist.  (Pa.) 
438. 

^Whitman  v.  Wilkes-Barre  De- 
posit &  Savings  Bank,  9  Kulp 
(Pa.)  512,  17  Lane.  L.  Rev.  (Pa.) 
107;  Connell  v.  Nicol,  2  Lack. 
Leg.  N.  (Pa.)  177;  Thorn  Bros. 
V.   Shields,  8   Pa.   Dist.    (Pa.)    129. 

w  Code  Civ.  Proc.  (N.  Y.)  §  3417, 
provides  that  a  mechanic's  lien 
on  real  estate  may  be  vacated  and 
canceled  by  order  of  a  court  of 
record,  if  the  lienor,  after  30  days' 


notice  in  writing,  shall  not  com- 
mence an  action  to  enforce  the 
same;  and  Lien  Law,  art.  1,  §  22 
(Laws  1897,  p.  525,  c.  418),  pro- 
vides that  the  article  relating  to 
mechanics'  lien  shall  be  liberally 
construed,  and  that  a  substantial 
compliance  with  its  provisions 
shall  be  sufficient.  Held,  that 
section  3417  was  not  a  statute  of 
limitations,  but  vested  the  court 
with  discretion  as  to  whether  or 
not  a  lien  should  be  vacated  for 
failure  of  the  lienor  to  bring  his 
action  within  the  time  provided. 
William  H.  Jackson  Co.  v.  Haven, 
87  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  236,  84  N.  Y. 
Supp.  356;  In  re  Burstein,  68  N. 
Y.  Supp.  742;  Prior  v.  White,  32 
Hun    (N.   Y.)    14. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


Sec. 

125.  Generally. 

126.  Amount  covered  by  lien 
statement. 

127.  Amount  limited  by  contract. 

128.  Amount  subject  to  sub-con- 
tractor's claim. 

129.  Amount  and  extent  of  lien  as 
to  time  of  commencement. 

130.  Amount  and  extent — Com- 
mencement of  work. 

131.  Amount  and  extent — Dura- 
tion of  lien. 

132.  Property  reached  by  lien. 

133.  Extent  of  tract  of  land  cov- 
ered by  lien. 

134.  Extent  of  tract  of  land  cov- 
ered by  lien — Continued. 

135.  Lot  of  land  covered  by  lien. 

136.  Land  covered  by  lien — Sever- 
al houses  on  tract. 

137.  Lien  on  contiguous  lots — 
Ohio  statute. 

138.  Building,  fixtures  and  ap- 
purtenances, covered  by  lien. 

139.  Estate  or  interest  in  land 
covered  by  lien. 

140.  Interest  or  estate  of  con- 
tracting owner  covered  by 
lien. 

141.  Leaseholds  covered  by  lien. 

142.  Community  property  covered 
by  lien — Homestead. 

143.  Lien  on  interest  of  landlord 
or  vendor  for  improvements 
made  by  tenant  or  purchaser. 

144.  Priority  between  mechanics 
and  material  men. 


Sec. 

145.  Priority  between  mechanics 
and  material  men — Assign- 
ment of  contract. 

146.  Generally  no  priority  by  rea- 
son of  time  of  furnishing 
work  or  material. 

147.  Equality  of  liens  upon  same 
job — Ohio  statute. 

148.  Pro  rata  payment  of  subcon- 
tractors out  of  subsequent 
payments  due  head  contrac- 
tor— Ohio  statute. 

148a.  Priority — Indiana  statute. 

149.  Priority  affected  by  convey- 
ances. 

150.  Priority  affected  by  convey- 
ance during  progress  of 
work. 

151.  Priority — Liens  and  incum- 
brances. 

152.  Priority  —  Dower,  curtesy, 
taxes. 

153.  Priority — Debts  of  decedents, 
buildings   and   improvements. 

154.  Priority — Judgments,  attach- 
ments,   executions. 

155.  Priority — Mortgages. 

156.  Priority  —  Mortgages  given 
before  making  contract  or 
commencement  of  work. 

157.  Priority  —  Mortgages  given 
after  making  contract  or 
comencement  of  work. 

158.  Priority  —  Mortgages  after 
commencement  of  work  or 
before  material  furnished. 

159.  Priority  —  Mortgages  given 
before  lien  attaches. 


22 


337 


§  126]  OPERATION   AND   EFFECT  OF   PERFECTED   LIEN.  338 

160.  Priority — ]\Iortgages — Future      162.  Priority  —  Mortgages  —    Im- 
advances.  provements. 

161.  Priority  —  -Mortgages —  Rec-      163.  Priority — Vendor's   lien. 

ord    of — Estoppel — After    ac-      164.  Priority  —  Purchase       money 
quired  property.  mortgages. 

§  125.  Generally. — In  the  preceding  chapters  we  have  consid- 
ered the  origin  and  nattire  of  the  hen/  the  conditions  giving  the 
right  to  the  lien,^  and  the  proceedings  necessary  on  the  part  of  the 
claimant  to  acquire  a  vaHd  lien.^  This  brings  us  to  a  consid- 
eration of  the  operation  and  effect  of  the  Hen, — assuming  that 
the  conditions  precedent  are  such  that  a  Hen  wiH  attach.  These 
matters  wiH  be  considered  in  this  chapter.  Necessarily  the 
questions  involved  are  those  which  after  action  is  brought, 
come  up  on  a  distribution  of  proceeds,  and  this  will  be  further 
considered  when  that  subject  is  reached.'* 

§  126.  Amount  covered  by  lien  statement. — One  of  the  first 
questions  involved  in  considering  the  operation  and  effect  of 
the  perfected  lien  is  the  amottnt  of  money  or  other  considera- 
tion that  is  covered  by  the  lien  statement  filed  or  other  exe- 
cuted condition  precedent.  Assuming  that  all  these  conditions 
precedent  have  been  properly  performed,  the  amount  covered 
will  depend  upon  the  contract  between  the  parties.^  If  there 
is  no  contract  fixing  the  value  of  the  services  or  material  fur- 
nished, then  the  reasonable  value  of  the  same  wall  determine 
the  amount  that  the  lien  covers,-  to  which  may  be  added  a 
proper  and  reasonable  profit.^  Sometimes  the  statute  fixes  the 
amount  to  be  held  subject  to  the  lien  as  the  amount  of  moneys 
due  at  the  time  a  certain  thing-  is  done,  as  the  giving  of  notice 


1  Chap.  1.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechan- 

2  Chap.  2.  ics'  Liens,  §  161. 

3  Chap.  3.  2Sierra  Nevada  Lumber  Co.  v. 
^  See  §  293.  Whitmore,  24  Utah  130,  66  Pac. 
iBroyhill  v.  Gaither,  119  N.  Car.  779. 

443,  26  S.  W.  31;   Summerville  v.  3 Smith  v.   Wilcox,  44   Ore.   323, 

King,  98  Tex.   332,  83   S.  W.   680.  74.  Pac.  708,  75  Pac.  710. 


339 


AMOUNT  COVERED   BY   STATEMENT. 


126 


or  matters  of  like  character.^  But  this  may  only  affect  the 
owner;  if  more  afterward  becomes  due,  this  may  be  held  sub- 
ject to  the  lien.^  However,  it  can  not  be  made  to  cover 
moneys  due  on  matters  not  relating  to  the  building  operations, 
nor  for  items  that  are  non-lienable."  The  general  rule  is  that 
such  sums  will  be  included  as  were  contemplated  by  the  origi- 
nal contract.^  If  the  work  is  not  entirely  performed  the  doc- 
trine that  partial  failure  will  avoid  the  entire  contract  is  not 
applied,^  and  the  lien  will  cover  the  amount  due  less  that  which 
is  required  to  perform  the  contract  as  required  by  its  stipula- 
tions.^^  If  the  claimant  is  wrongfully  discharged  his  lien  will 
cover  the  amount  due  for  the  work  done,  taking  into  consid- 
eration the  stipulated  price. ^^      Where  the  owner  is  liable  to  a 


•^Protective  Union  v.  Nixon, 
1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  671. 
Where  the  notice  of  the  sub- 
contractors' lien  does  not  cover 
labor  to  be  performed  or  material 
to  be  furnished,  they  are  not  en- 
titled to  a  lien  for  labor  and  ma- 
terials furnished  after  filing  the 
lien.  Hutton  Bros.  v.  Gordon,  2 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  267,  23  N.  Y.  Supp. 
770.  The  lien  given  by  Act  (Pa.) 
1872,  to  the  wages  of  laborers, 
does  not  extend  to  wages  earned 
after  the  levy.  Schrader  v.  Burr, 
10  Phila.  (Pa.)  620,  31  Leg.  Int. 
(Pa.)   405. 

6Van  Clief  v.  Van  Vechten,  130 
N.  Y.  571,  29  N.  E.  1017;  White  v. 
Livingston,  69  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
361,  75  N.  Y.  Supp.  466. 

"Hathorne  v.  Panama  Park  Co., 
44  Fla.  194,  32  So.  812,  103  Am. 
St.  138;  Pardue  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  52  Neb.  301,  71  N.  W.  1022, 
66  Am.  St.  489;  Spalding  v.  Burke, 
33  Wash.  679,  74  Pac.  829. 


sGerman  Bank  v.  Schloth,  59 
Iowa  316,  13  N.  W.  314;  Boyd  v. 
Mole,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  118,  30  Leg. 
Int.    (Pa.)    116. 

9See   §  49. 

ic'District  of  Columbia.  —  Beha 
V.  Ottenberg,  6  Mackey  (D.  C.)  348. 

Illinois. — Sohns  v.  Murphy,  168 
111.    346,   48    N.   E.    52. 

Massachusetts. — Orr  v.  Fuller, 
172  Mass.  597,  52  N.  E.  1091. 

?feTV  York. — White  v.  Livings- 
ton, 174  N.  Y.  538,  66  N.  E.  1118; 
Charlton  v.  Scoville,  68  Hun  (N. 
Y.)   348,  22  N.  Y.  Supp.  883. 

JVebraska. — Millsap  v.  Ball,  30 
Neb.   728,   46  N.   W.   1125. 

iiRome  Hotel  Co.  v.  Warlick, 
87  Ga.  34,  13  S.  E.  116;  Watrous 
V.  Davies,  35  111.  App.  542;  Hale 
V.  Johnson,  6  Kan.  137;  Landy- 
skowski  V.  Martyn,  93  Mich.  575, 
53  N.  W.  781.  In  such  cases, 
neither  party  is  to  be  allowed  any 
advantage  from  his  own  wrong. 
Thomas  v.  Stewart,  132  N.  Y.  580, 
30    N.    E.    577. 


127] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


340 


person  with  whom  he  has  made  no  direct  contract,  he  will  be  liable 
for  the  reasonable  value  of  the  labor  and  materials. ^2  ^^id 
this  will  be  the  case  where  the  fund  is  insufficient  to  satisfy  the 
claim. ^-"^  The  amount  that  is  covered  by  the  lien  will  also  in- 
clude interest  from  the  time  that  the  obligation  is  due.^^  And 
if  usurious  interest  has  been  agreed  upon  the  penalties  attach- 
ing to  that  kind  of  interest  will  be  applied. ^^ 

§  127.  Amount  limited  by  contract. — As  a  general  rule, 
where  the  parties  fix  the  value  of  their  work  and  materials  by 
contract,  that  will  be  the  amount  covered  by  the  lien.^      And 


i2Laird  v.  Moonan,  32  Minn. 
358,   20   N.   W.   354. 

i3Arkansas. — Basham  v.  Toors, 
51  Ark.  309,  11  S.  W.  282. 

Indiana. — Morris  v.  Louisville, 
Etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  Ind.  489,  24  N. 
E.  335;  Merritt  v.  Pearson,  58 
Ind.  385. 

Massachusetts. — Borden  v.  Mer- 
cer, 163  Mass.  7,  39  N.  E.  413. 

Missouri. — Deardorff  v.  Ever- 
hartt,  74  Mo.  37;  Miller  v.  White- 
law,  28  Mo.  App.  639. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Cattanach  v. 
Ingersoll,  11  Pa.  L.  J.  345. 

i4Colorado. — Hurd  v.  Tomkins, 
17  Colo.  394,  30  Pac.  247;  Clear 
Creek,  &c.,  Gold,  &c.,  Min.  Co.  v. 
Root,  1  Colo.  374. 

Illinois. — McDonald  v.  Patter- 
son, 186  111.  381,  57  N.  E.  1027. 

Indiana. — Merritt  v.  Pearson, 
76  Ind.   44. 

Maryland. — Smith  v.  Shaffer,  50 
Md.   132. 

Jfew  York.  —  McConologue  v. 
Larkins,  32  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  166,  66 
N.   Y.    Supp.    188. 

Oregon. — Forbes  v.  Willamette 
Falls   Electric  Co.,  19  Ore.   61,   23 


Pac.  670,  20  Am.  St.  793;  Wil- 
lamette Falls  Transp.  &  Mill  Co. 
V.  Riley,  1  Ore.  183. 

>yisconsin. — Bailey  v.  Hull,  11 
Wis.  289,  78  Am.  Dec.  706.  Need 
not  show  delay.  Merritt  v.  Crane 
Co.,  126  111.  App.  337;  judgment 
modified,  225  111.  181,  80  N.  E. 
103.  Demand  must  be  liquidated. 
Fox  V.  Davidson,  111  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  174,  97  N.  Y.  Supp.  603; 
Sorg  v.  Crandall,  129  111.  App. 
255,  judgment  aflirmed  Lowden  v. 
Sorg,  233  111.  79,  84  N.  E.  181.  The 
fact  that  a  lien  will  be  enforced 
against  a  party  other  than  the 
one  who  made  the  contract  with 
the  lien  claimant,  does  not  pre- 
clude the  allowance  of  interest. 
Sorg  V.  Crandall,  129  111.  App. 
255,  judgment  afRrmed  Lowden  v. 
Sorg,  233  111.  79,  84  N.  E.  181. 

i5Sproulle  V.  McFarland  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.)    56   S.  W.   693. 

iTrammell  v.  Hudmon,  78  Ala. 
222;  Canady  v.  Webb  (Ky.),  80 
S.  W.  172,  25  Ky.  L.  2107;  Dengler 
V.  Auer,  55  Mo.  App.  548.  Extras 
within  the  original  contract  will 
be  included.  Zollars  v.  Snyder 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  94  S.  W.  1096. 


341 


AMOUNT  LIMITED  BY  CONTRACT. 


[§127 


if  the  amount  is  to  be  determined  by  a  per  cent.,  and  the  work 
is  cut  down,  the  amount  will  be  proportionately  reduced.* 
Where  there  has  been  neither  fraud  nor  collusion,^  and  the 
owner  is  not  directly  liable,  either  by  contract  or  statute,*  the 
amount  of  the  lien  of  a  subcontractor  cannot  exceed  the  balance 
due  from  the  owner  to  the  contractor.^  If  the  owner  is  liable, 
independent  of  his  contract  with  the  contractor,^  then  the 
value  of  the  materials  furnished  will  control  the  amount  sub- 
ject to  the  lien.'^     All,  however,  must  be  within  the  limit  of  the 


2Rinn  v.  Electric  Power  Co.  of 
Salem  Island,  3  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
305,  38  N.  Y.  Supp.  345.  Where  a 
contract  stipulated  for  a  lien,  it 
will  not  necessarily  be  held  to 
mean  a  mechanic's  lien.  Lippen- 
cott  V.  York,  86  Tex.  276,  24  S. 
W.   275. 

3See  §  58.  Mantonya  v.  Reilly, 
184  111.  183,  56  N.  E.  425. 

4See  §  53.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  162. 

^Alabama. — Trammell  v.  Hud- 
mon,  78  Ala.  222;  Childers  v. 
Greenville,   69   Ala.   103. 

California. — Gibson  v.  Wheeler, 
110  Cal.  243,  42  Pac.  810;  Turner 
V.  Strenzel,  70  Cal.  28,  11  Pac. 
289;  O'Donnell  v.  Kramer,  65 
Cal.  353,  4  Pac.  204;  Whittier  v. 
Hollister,  64  Cal.  283,  30  Pac. 
846. 

Florida.  —  Trustees  of  Wylly 
Academy  v.  Sanford,  17  Fla.  152. 

Iowa. — Wickham  v.  Monroe,  89 
Iowa  666,  57  N.  W.  434,  Parker 
V.  Scott,  82  Iowa  266,  47  N.  W. 
1073. 

Kansas. — Main  Street  Hotel  Co. 
V.  Horton  Hardware  Co.,  56  Kan. 
448,  43  Pac.  769. 

Louisiana.   —   McLaughlin       v. 


Goodchaux,  7  La.  Ann.  101;  Hall 
V.   Wills,   3  La.   Ann.   504. 

New  Jersey. — Craig  v.  Smith, 
8  Vroom  (N.  J.  L.)  549. 

Jfew  York. — De  Lorenzo  v.  Von 
Raitz,  44  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  329, 
60  N.  Y.  Supp.  736;  Holley  v.  Van 
Dolsen,  55  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  333; 
Drake  v.  O'Donnell,  49  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  25;  Pike  v.  Irwin,  1  Sandf. 
(N.  Y.)  14;  Spalding  v.  King,  1 
E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  717;  Doughty 
v.  Devlin,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.) 
625. 

Pennsylrania.  —  Campbell  v. 
Scaife,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  187. 

Texas. — Potshuisky  v.  Kremp- 
kan,  26  Tex.  307. 

Utah. — Teahen  v.  Nelson,  6 
Utah  363,  23  Pac.  764.  The  money 
which  may  remain  in  the  hands 
of  the  owner,  and  due  to  the 
original  contractor,  after  all  de- 
ductions are  made  to  which  the 
owner  is  entitled,  is  the  fund,  and 
the  only  fund,  out  of  which  sub- 
contractors are  to  be  paid.  Cul- 
ver V.   Elwell,   73   111.   536. 

6See    §    55. 

7Laird  v.  Moonan,  32  Minn.  358, 
20  N.  W.  354;  Henry  &  Coats- 
worth    Co.    V.    Evans,    97    Mo.    47, 


§  127] 


OPERATION   AND   EFFECT  OF   PERFECTED   LIEN. 


342 


contract  price. ^  Under  statutes  which  have  made  it  obligatory 
upon  the  owner  to  record  his  contract  and  he  has  failed  to  do 
so,  the  amount  has  not  been  limited  to  that  stipulated  in  the 
original  contract,  but  to  the  reasonable  value  of  the  labor  or 
materials.''  As  to  such  indirect  liens,  generally  the  owner  is 
liable  and  the  lien  covers  the  amount  that  w^as  due  at  the  time 
notice  was  given,  or  that  might  thereafter  become  due.^*'  Joint 
contractors  cannot,  without  the  assent  of  the  owner,  apportion 
what  is  due  each  of  them,  and  in  that  manner  limit  the  sub- 
contractor of  one  or  the  other  to  the  fund  which  was  agreed  as 
his  share. ^^  Where  the  fund  remaining  in  the  hands  of  the 
owner  is  not  sufficient  to  pay  all  claims,  it  is  distributed  pro 
rata  to  those  of  an  equal  class.^^  And  claims  of  the  subcon- 
tractors will  attach  to  what  is  due  on  all  the  buildings  upon 
which  they  performed  labor. ^^ 


10  S.  W.  868,  3  L.  R.  A.  332;  Hilli- 
ker  V.  Francisco,  65  Mo.  598;  Chil- 
ton V.  Lindsay,  38  Mo.  App.  57. 

SAlbright  v.  Smith,  3  S.  Dak. 
631,  54  N.  W.  816;  Rowell  v.  Har- 
ris, 121  Ga.  239,  48  S.  E.  948; 
Green  v.  Farrar  Lumber  Co.,  119 
Ga.  30,  46  S.  E.  62;  Sierra  Nevada 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Whitmore,  24 
Utah  130,  66  Pac.  779;  Hampton 
V.  Christensen,  148  Cal.  729,  84 
Pac.  200. 

9  Niswander  v.  Black,  50  W.  Va. 
188,  40   S.  E.   431. 

I'^Alabania, — Greene  v.  Robin- 
son, 110  Ala.  503,  20  So.   65. 

California. — Blythe  v.  Poultney, 
31  Cal.  233;  Davis  v.  Livingston, 
29  Cal.  283;  Knowles  v.  Joost,  13 
Cal.    620. 

Colorado. — Epley  v.  Scherer,  5 
Colo.  536;  Jensen  v.  Brown.  2 
Colo.   694. 

Florida, — Carter  v.  Brady,  51 
Fla.  404,  41  So.  539. 


Illinois. — Douglas  v.  McCord,  12 

111.  App.  278. 

ISew  York.  —  Cheney  v.  Troy 
Hospital  Assn.,  65  N.  Y.  282; 
Riggs  V.  Chapin,  7  N.  Y.  Supp. 
765,  27  N.  Y.  St.  26S;  Hitchings 
V.  Teague,  113  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
670,  99   N.  Y.  Supp.  967. 

Ohio.  —  Dunn  v.  Rankin,  27 
Ohio  St.  132. 

Virginia. — Schrieber  v.  Citizens' 
Bank,  99  Va.  257,  38  S.  E.  134,  3 
Va.  Supp.  Ct.  Rep.  185. 

iiDavis  V.  Livingston,  29  Cal. 
283. 

i2Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Allen, 
52  Kan.  795,  35  Pac.  781;  Clough 
V.  McDonald,  18  Kan.  114. 

13 Smith  V.  Wilcox,  44  Ore.  323, 
74  Pac.  708,  75  Pac.  710.  Under  a 
statute  which  provided  that  when 
notice  is  given,  the  owner  shall 
be  liable  for  "the  amount  of  such 
claim"  it  was  held  that,  when  the 


343 


AMOUNT  SUBJECT  TO  SUBCONTRACTOR'S  CLAIM.  [§  128 


§  128.  Amount  subject  to  subcontractor's  claim. — As  a  gen- 
eral rule,  the  lien  attaches  to  installments  then  due  or  that 
thereafter  may  become  due.^  Of  course  it  can  be  enforced 
only  after  the  installment  is  due.^  The  failure  of  the  principal 
contractor  will  not  as  a  general  rule  defeat  in  toto  the  claim  of 
the  subcontractor,^  but  the  subcontractor  will  be  entitled  to  so 
much  as  his  work  and  materials  are  reasonably  worth,  accord- 
ing to  the  contract  price,  first  deducting  all  payments  right- 
fully made  and  damages  attaching,  occasioned  by  the  non-per- 
formance of  the  principal  contract.'*  In  case  of  non-perform- 
ance by  the  principal  contractor,  the  amount  covered  is  the 
amount  fixed  by  the  contract,  less  damages  sustained  by  non- 
performance.^ As  a  matter  of  course,  if  the  damage  exceeds 
the  entire  amount  due  on  the  principal  contract,  the  subcon- 
tractor's claim  fails,*'  and  this  rule  will  apply  even  if  the  dam- 
ages were  liquidated,'^  or  stipulated.^     If  there  is  fraud  between 


notice  was  given,  tlie  owner  was 
liable,  not  to  ttie  extent  that  tie 
was  indebted  to  the  principal  con- 
tractor, but  to  the  extent  of  the 
claim  of  the  sub-contractor. 
Shenandoah  Val.  R.  Co.  v.  Miller, 
80  Va.  821. 

iTabor  v.  Armstrong,  9  Colo. 
285,  12  Pac.  157.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens  §  164. 

2Heckmann  v.  Pinkney,  81  N.  Y. 
211. 

"See  §  64.  They  would  pro 
rate.  Central  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Braddock  Land,  Etc.,  Co.,  84  Ark. 
560,  105  S.  W.  583. 

4Mehrle  v.  Dunne,  75  111.  2.39; 
Morehouse  v.  Moulding,  74  111. 
322;  Van  Clief  v.  Van  Vechten, 
48  Hun  (N.  Y.)  304,  1  N.  Y.  Supp. 
99;  Wright  v.  Pohls,  83  Wis.  560, 
53  N.  W.  848.  Lake  v.  Brannin,  90 
Miss  737,  44  So.  65.  Kotcher  v. 
Perrin,  149  Mich.  690,  113  N.  W. 
284,  14  Det.  Leg.  N.  593.  In  some 


cases,  it  is  held,  that  the  work 
is  not  to  be  limited  by  the  con- 
tract price,  but  as  to  its  worth. 
Taylor  v.  Murphy,  148  Pa.  St. 
337,  23  Atl.  1134,  30  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.) 
27,  33  Am.  St.  825. 

5Reed  v.  Norton,  90  Cal.  590, 
26  Pac.  767,  27  Pac.  426;  Water- 
bury  Lumber  etc.,  Co.  v.  Coogan, 
73  Conn.  519,  48  Atl.  204. 

cparrish  v.  Christopher  (Ky.), 
3  S.  W.  603,  8  Ky.  L.  868  (with- 
out opinion). 

"Julin  V.  Ristow  Poths  Mfg. 
Co.,  54  111.  App.  460.  When  con- 
tract states  that  a  certain  sum 
shall  be  liquidated  damages  if 
not  complete,  owner  can  retain 
such  sum  even  as  against  sub- 
contractors. McBean  v.  Kinnear, 
23   Ont.   313. 

s  California. — Wood  v.  Oakland, 
etc.,  Rapid  Transit  Co.,  107  Cal. 
500,  40  Pac.  806;   Dunlop  v.  Ken- 


128] 


OPERATION   AND   EFFECT  OF   PERFECTED   LIEN. 


344 


the  owner  and  contractor,  this  will  vitiate  everything,  but  it  is 
not  presumed.^  However,  if  it  is  shown,  the  guilty  parties 
will  not  be  permitted  to  benefit  thereby;  therefore,  if  a  contract 
were  purposely  made  too  low,  the  subcontractor  will  not  be 
limited  in  his  claim  to  such  contract  price,  but  for  reasonable 
value  of  his  work  donc^*^  Where  a  statute  requires  the  con- 
tractor to  give  a  statement  of  all  claims  due  for  labor  or  ma- 
terials to  the  ow^ner,  and  the  owmer  pays  the  contractor  with- 
out demanding  such  statement,  this  will  be  an  unlaw^ful  act 
on  the  part  of  the  owner  and  he  would  be  liable  to  the  sub- 
contractor in  an  amount  not  exceeding  the  principal  contract 
price.i^  The  owner  has  a  right  to  make  payments  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  in  the  manner  provided  for  in  his  contract,  and  if  the 
payments  are  of  a  kind  inconsistent  with  a  lien,  the  subcon- 
tractor may  lose  his  statutory  lien,  but  no  doubt  a  court  of 
equity  would  follow  the  property  and  decree  a  lien  upon  that 
which  was  the  consideration  of  the  contract.^-    As  a  general  rule, 


nedy,  102  Cal.  443,  36  Pac.  765; 
Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  San  Diego 
Flume  Co.,  97  Cal.  263,  32  Pac. 
172;  Davies-Henderson  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Gottschalk,  SI  Cal.  641,  22 
Pac.  860;  Kellogg  v.  Howes,  SI 
Cal.  170,  22  Pac.  509,  6  L.  R.  A. 
58Sn. 

Xew  York. — Morgan  v.  Steveis. 
6  Abb.  N.  Cas.    (N.  Y.)    356. 

Under  the  statute  of  Cali- 
fornia, the  contract  must  be  in 
writing  and  recorded,  if  it  exceed 
$1,000,  and  if  it  is  not  so  record- 
ed, all  the  work  shall  be  consid- 
ered to  be  performed  at  the  in- 
stance of  the  owner.  In  such  cases 
where  the  contract  is  not  re- 
corded, the  sub-contractor  is  not 
limited  to  the  amount  due  the 
contractor.  Stimson  Mill  Co.  v. 
Riley   (Cal.),  42  Pac.  1072. 


SFoster  v.  Swaback,  58  111.  App. 
581. 

lOFoster  v.  Swaback,  58  111. 
App.  581. 

iiConklin  v.  Plant,  34  111.  App. 
264. 

12  Jones,  etc..  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Murphy,  64  Iowa  165,  19  N.  W. 
898;  Gates  v.  Whitcomb,  4  Hun 
(X.  Y.)  137,  6  Th.  &  C.  (N.  Y.) 
341.  Contract  to  Build  and  Buy — 
Where  the  owner  contracts  to 
sell  and  advances  money  to  build, 
and  the  deed  is  not  to  pass  until 
after  the  house  is  completed, 
when  a  mortgage  is  to  be  given 
for  the  purchase  price  and  money 
advanced,  in  such  cases,  the  lien 
of  the  mechanic  would  be  prior 
to  the  mortgage,  and  the  build- 
ing would  be  considered  as  being 
erected  by  consent  of  the  owner 


345 


EXTENT  AS  TO  TIME  OF  COMMENCEMENT. 


[§  129 


a  subcontractor's  lien  will  not  extend  to  moneys  in  the  owner's 
hands,  due  the  contractor  for  damages  sustained  by  him  for 
the  wrongful  acts  of  the  owner/^  even  if  the  damages  are 
agreed  or  stipulated.^'*  The  rule  as  to  extras,  especially  if 
made  a  part  of  the  original  contract,  is  different. ^^  However 
if  the  statute  makes  a  contractor  the  owner's  agent  then  the 
owner  is  liable  to  the  subcontractor,  even  though  he  owe  the 
contractor  nothing.^^  As  a  general  rule,  the  subcontractor's 
claim  is  limited  to  the  amount  agreed  upon  in  his  contract 
with  the  principal  contractor.!'^ 

§  129.  Amount  and  extent  of  lien  as  to  time  of  commence- 
ment.— In  determining  the  amount  and  extent  of  the  lien  it 
may  be  said  that  if  the  statute  mentions  no  particular  time, 
the  amount  or  extent  to  which  the  property  may  be  held,  be- 
gins at  the  time  the  work  is  commenced  or  the  material  fur- 
nished,^  assuming  that  all  conditions  precedent  have  been  prop- 


under  the  New  York  statute. 
Schmalz  v.  Mead,  125  N.  Y.  188, 
26  N.  E.  251. 

i3Hoyt  V.  Miner,  7  Hill  (N.  Y.) 
525. 

i4Nolan  V.  Gardner,  4  E.  D. 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  727. 

laBlakeslee  v.  Fisher,  66  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  261,  21  N.  Y.  Supp.  217. 
Morgan  v.  Stevens,  6  Abb.  N. 
Cas.  (N.  Y.)  356.  Profit  not  in- 
cluded. O'Reilly  v.  Mahoney,  123 
App.  Dlv.  (N.  Y.)  275,  108  N.  Y. 
Supp.    53. 

16  Hobbs  V.  Spiegelberg,  3  N. 
Mex.  357,  5  Pac.  529. 

17  Bowen  v.  Phinney,  162  Mass. 
593,  39  N.  E.  283,  44  Am.  St.  391; 
Vogel  V.  Whitmore,  72  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  417,  25  N.  Y.  Supp.  202;  Dore 
V.  Sellers,  27  Cal.  588.  Persons 
furnishing  materials,  and  per- 
forming labor  in  the  construction 


of  a  building  are  entitled  to  be 
paid  in  full,  where  the  contract 
price  is  sufficient.  Central  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Braddock  Land,  &c., 
Co.,  84  Ark.  560,  105  S.  W.  583. 

lArkansas. — White  v.  Chaffin, 
32  Ark.  59;  McCullough  v.  Cald- 
well,   8    Ark.    231. 

Ohio. — Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2 
Ohio    St.    114. 

PeniisylTania. — Wrigley  v.  Ma- 
haffey,  5  Pa.  Dist.  389. 

Rhode  Island.  —  Hawkins  v. 
Boyden,  25  R.  I.  181,  55  Atl.  324. 
However,  if  a  judgment  was 
taken  and  no  time  therein  speci- 
fied, it  would  date  from  the  time 
judgment  was  docketed.  Kendall 
V.  McFarland,  4  Ore.  292;  Sanford 
V.  Kunkel,  30  Utah  379,  85  Pac. 
363,  judgment  modified  on  rehear- 
ing,   85    Pac.    1012.      See    Dec.    & 


129] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


346 


erly  performed.-  Under  some  statutes  it  has  been  held  that 
the  lien  claim  will  extend  back  to  the  time  that  the  contract 
was  made,^  or  when  the  contract  is  recorded.^  But  the  con- 
struction given  generally  to  statutes  is  that  the  lien  does  not 
extend  to  a  time  prior  to  the  time  when  the  work  was  com- 
menced or  the  materials  furnished.^  As  a  matter  of  course 
this  must  depend  largely  upon  the  statutory  provision  relat- 
ing thereto,  and  the  construction  of  the  same  by  the  courts  of 
the    particular    jurisdiction.^     The    general    rule    is    that    the 


Am.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens  § 
165. 

2To  be  prior  the  record  must 
also  show  it  to  come  within  the 
mechanic's  lien  law.  Rosenthal 
V.  Maryland  Brick  Co.,  61  Md. 
590. 

3Ivey  V.  White,  50  Miss.  142; 
Bell  V.  Cooper,  26  Miss.  650.  Un- 
der Ky.  St.  2467,  providing  that, 
if  the  labor  performed  or  ma- 
terials furnished  shall  not  be 
performed  or  furnished  by  con- 
tract with  the  owner,  but  for  a 
contractor  or  sub-contractor,  no 
lien  shall  attach  for  the  same 
"unless  notice  in  writing  be  given 
to  the  owner  that  a  lien  will  be 
claimed,"  the  lien,  if  notice  be 
given  within  60  days,  relates 
back,  as  expressly  provided  as  to 
the  lien  of  the  principal  con- 
tractor, and  takes  precedence  of 
intervening  liens.  Finck,  etc., 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Mehler,  102  Ky. 
Ill,  43  S.  W.  403,  766. 

Where  Parties  bad  Knowledge. 
— Land  was  purchased  by  one 
who  agreed  to  make  improve- 
ments, and  for  the  purchaser's 
convenience  a  deed  was  executed 
to  a  third  person,  and  made  an 
escrow.     The   grantee     and     the 


purchaser  were  partners,  under 
an  agreement  whereby  the  pur- 
chaser was  to  superintend  the 
erection  of  buildings  on  the  land, 
and  the  grantee  was  to  pay  all 
bills  therefor.  This  was  done, 
and  the  price  was  paid  by  the 
grantee  and  the  deed  delivered. 
As  against  a  trust  deed  executed 
by  the  grantee,  when  his  deed 
was  delivered  to  h.im,  mechanic's 
liens  arising  in  favor  of  the 
builders  attached  as  of  the  date 
of  their  contract.  Chicago  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Dillon,  13  Colo.  App. 
196,  56  Pac.  989;  Hughes  v.  Mc- 
Casland,  122  111.  App.  365.  See 
§  45   Indiana  statute. 

■i  Homans  v.  Coombe,  3  Cranch 
(C.  C.)  365,  12  Fed.  Cas.  6654. 
General  registry  act  does  not  ap- 
ply. Jones  V.  Kern,  101  Ga.  309, 
28  S.  E.  850. 

^Williams  v.  Chapman,  17  111. 
423,  65  Am.  Dec.  669;  McLagen 
V.  Brown,  11  111.  519;  Freeman  v. 
Arnold,  39  111.  App.  216;  North- 
western Loan  &  Inv.  Assn.  v. 
:\IcPherson,  23  Ind.  App.  250,  54 
X.  E.  130. 

•"'See  §§  95-97,  as  to  what  con- 
stitutes beginning  work. 


347 


EXTENT  AS  TO  TIME  OF  COMMENCEMENT. 


129 


claim  cannot  antedate  the  commencement  of  the  building  for 
which  the  materials  were  furnished,'^  though  some  statutes 
have  been  construed  to  allow  the  claim  to  relate  back  to  the 
time  of  the  furnishing.^  The  rule  where  materials  and  work 
are  put  upon  property  indepedent  of  the  main  improvement,  is 
that  the  lien  dates  from  the  time  the  materials  were  furnished 
or  the    work    commenced.^     The    mere    fact    that    the    land 


California. — McCrea  v.  Craig, 
23    Cal.    522. 

Colorado. — Keystone  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Gallagher,  5  Colo.  23;  Mellor  v. 
Valentine,  3  Colo.  255. 

Iowa. — Neilson  v.  Iowa  Eastern 
R.  Co.,  44  Iowa  71;  Shields  v. 
Keys,  24  Iowa  298;  Jones  v.  Swan, 
21  Iowa  181;  Monroe  v.  West,  12 
Iowa  119,  79  Am.  Dec.  524. 

Jientucky.— Caldwell  Institute 
V.  Young,  63  Ky.  582;  Waddy  Blue 
Grass  Creamery  Co.  v.  Davis- 
Rankin  Bldg.  &  Mfg.  Co.,  103  Ky. 
579,   45   S.  W.   895,  20   Ky.   L.   259. 

Missouri.  —  Holland  v.  Cunliff , 
96  Mo.  App.  67,  69  S.  W.  737. 

Nebraska.— Henry  &  Coats- 
worth  Co.  V.  Pisherdick,  37  Neb. 
207,    55   N.   W.    643. 

Oliio. — Hazard  Powder  Co.  v. 
Loomis,  2  Disney  (Ohio)  544; 
Woodman  v.  Richardson,  1  Ohio 
C.  C.  191,  1  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  104. 

Oregon. — Henry  v.  Hand,  36 
Ore.  492,  59  Pac.  330;  Kendall  v. 
McFarland,  4  Ore.  292. 

Pennsylrania. — Reilly  v.  Elliott, 
1   Del.   Co.   Ct.    (Pa.)    77. 

Utali.  —  Teahan  v.  Nelson,  6 
Utah  363,  23  Pac.  764. 

Federal. — Sabin  v.  Connor,  21 
Fed.  Cas.  12,197;  In  re  Cook,  3 
Biss.  (U.  S.)  116.  6  Fed.  Cas.  3151. 


Work  by  Montb.— The  mere 
fact  that  one  performing  lienable 
work  under  an  entire  contract  is 
paid  by  the  month,  does  not  pre- 
vent his  lien  from  attaching  from 
the  date  of  the  last  work.  Nason 
V.  Northwestern  Milling  &  Power 
Co.,  17  Wash.  142,  49  Pac.  235; 
Knox  V.  Starks,  4  Minn,  20; 
Farmers'  Bank  v.  Winslow,  3 
Minn.  86,  74  Am.  Dec.  740. 

Meaning  of  Furnisb.  —  Under 
the  mechanic's  lien  law  providing 
that  a  statement,  when  filed,  shall 
operate  to  continue  the  lien  from 
the  time  of  "furnishing"  the  first 
item  of  labor,  the  term  "furnish" 
means  furnished  on  the  premises, 
and  a  lien  attaches  at  the  date 
of  the  performance  of  the  first 
work,  or  the  delivery  of  the  first 
material  on  the  ground;  that  is, 
from  the  commencement  of  the 
improvement  on  the  land.  Went- 
worth  V.  Tubbs,  53  Minn.  388,  55 
N.    W.   543. 

"Kansas  Mortg.  Co.  v.  Weyer- 
haeuser, 48  Kan.  335,  29  Pac.  153. 

SFlint,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Doug- 
lass Sugar  Co.,  54  Kan.  455,  38 
Pac.  566;  Nason  v.  Northwestern 
Milling  &  Power  Co.,  17  Wash. 
142,  49   Pac.   235. 

9Wells  V.  Canton  Co.,  3  Md. 
234. 


§129] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN, 


348 


changes  owners,  after  the  work  begins,  will  not  affect  the  amount 
of  the  lien,  nor  the  time  when  it  begins  to  run.^*^  Accord- 
ing to  some  courts  where  the  plans  are  so  changed  as  to  prac- 
tically make  a  different  contract,  the  lien  for  materials  fur- 
nished thereafter  dates  from  the  time  the  alterations  were 
commenced.^  ^  If  the  contractor  abandons  the  work,  and  it  is 
finished  by  the  owner,  the  lien  for  the  material  furnished  the 
owner  will  date  from  the  commencement  of  his  work. ^2  An 
interruption  for  a  short  time  followed  by  a  resumption  of  the 
work,  with  no  material  change  in  design,  will  not  be  considered 
a  recommencement.^^  And  where  there  is  no  intention  to 
abandon  work,  the  interruption  may,  for  good  cause,  extend 
over  several  months. i"*  But  if  it  is  abandoned,  or  appears  to 
be  fully  performed,  and  a  new-  contract  made,  a  lien  therefor 
cannot  date  from  the  original  commencement. ^-^ 

§  130.     Amount    and    extent — commencement    of    work. — 

Some  difficulty  may  sometimes  be  experienced  in  determining 
as  to  what  will  constitute  a  commencement  of  the  work.  This 
is  generally  the  first  labor  that  is  performed  on  the  proposed 


if> Gordon  v.  Torrey,  15  N.  J. 
Eq.  112,  82  Am.  Dec.  273;  Pen- 
nock  V.  Hoover,  5  Rawle  (Pa.) 
291. 

iiSmedley  v.  Conaway,  5  Clark 
(Pa.)  417;  Norris's  Appeal,  30  Pa. 
St.    122. 

iSFeike  v.  C.  &  E.  Railway  Co., 
14  Ohio  C.  C.  186.  An  architect 
may  have  his  lien,  if  the  building 
is  commenced  according  to  his 
plans  although  abandoned  with 
only  a  part  of  the  excavating 
done,  and  no  use  is  thereafter 
made  of  the  plans.  Fitzgerald  v. 
Walsh,  107  Wis.  92,  82  N.  W.  717, 
81  Am.   St.   824. 

13  Gordon  v.  Torrey,  15  X.  .T. 
Eq.  112,  82  Am.  Dec.  273. 


^Unsuitable  season.  Manhat- 
tan Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Paulison,  1 
Stew.  (N.  J.  Eq.)  304.  By  state 
of  work.  Savoy  v.  Dudley,  168 
Mass.   538,    47   N.   E.   424. 

i5Appeal  of  Kelley  (Pa.),  2 
Atl.  868.  While  there  must  be 
some  visible  commencement  of 
work  under  the  lien  statute  to  nx 
the  time  of  the  commencement 
of  the  lien  claim,  there  need  not 
be  visible  continuity  of  work  from 
first  to  last  in  order  that  the 
last  labor  or  material  furnished 
may  relate  back  to  the  com- 
mencement of  work,  and  all  be 
regarded  as  furnished  under  one 
contract  or  an  entire  running  ac- 
count.     Hutchins    v.    Bautch,    123 


349 


AMOUNT COMMENCEMENT  OF   WORK. 


[§130 


structure.  Usually  this  is  the  excavation  for  the  cellar.^  As 
a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that  a  commencement  in  this 
sense  is  something  which  is  apparent  and  such  that 
a  person  viewing  the  premises  will  readily  recognize 
as  the  beginning  of  a  structure.^  If  the  owner  is  to 
do  one  part  and  a  contractor  another  part  the  lien 
as    to    each    will    date    from    the    time    each    began    work   on 


Wis.  394,  101  N.  W.  671,  107  Am. 
St.   1014. 

1  Nixon  V.  Cydon  Lodge  No.  5, 
56  Kan.  298,  43  Pac.  236;  Ttiomas 
V.  Mowers,  27  Kan.  265;  Jacobus 
V.  Mutual  Ben.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  12 
C.  E.  Green  (N.  J.  Eq.)  604;  Mu- 
tual Ben.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Rowand, 
11  C.  E.  Green   (N.  J.  Eq.)    389. 

Commencement. — "It  was  held 
by  this  court,  in  the  case  of 
Thomas  v.  Mowers,  27  Kan.  265, 
that  the  work  of  digging  the  cel- 
lar was  the  commencement  of  the 
building.  This  case  cites  Pennock 
V.  Hoover,  5  Rawle  (Pa.)  291, 
wherein  it  is  stated:  'The  com- 
mencement of  the  building  is  the 
first  labor  done  on  the  ground 
which  is  made  the  foundation  of 
the  building  and  to  form  part  of 
the  work  suitable  and  necessary 
for  its  construction.  The  com- 
mencement of  a  building,  in  law, 
takes  place  with  the  digging  and 
walling  of  the  cellar.'  The  case 
of  Brooks  V.  Lester,  36  Md.  65,  is 
also  cited,  and  the  case  holds: 
'It  is  some  work  or  labor  on  the 
ground,  such  as  digging  the  foun- 
dation, which  everyone  can  read- 
ily see  and  recognize  as  the  com- 
mencement of  the  building.'  In 
the  case  of  Kelly  v.  Rosenstock, 
45  Md.  389,  it  wa^  held  that  where 


the  lessee,  before  he  had  acquired 
an  interest  in  the  property,  and 
before  a  survey  had  been  made, 
went,  with  his  foreman  and  a  la- 
borer, and  drove  stakes  to  indi- 
cate the  line  of  the  foundations, 
and  at  one  corner  had  dug  or 
scraped  away  the  dirt  down  to  a 
level,  the  whole  work  occupying 
but  a  part  of  a  day,  that  this 
could  not  be  considered  as  the 
commencement  of  a  building.  In 
the  case  of  Middletown  Savings 
Bank  v.  Fellowes,  42  Conn.  36,  it 
is  held  that  bringing  a  consider- 
able amount  of  lumber  upon  the 
premises,  and  beginning  to  build 
a  fence  around  the  lot,  does  not 
create  a  lien  prior  to  a  mortgage 
executed  after  the  delivery  of  the 
lumber  or  the  commencement  of 
the  fence,  the  work  on  the  house 
not  commencing  until  after  the 
execution  of  the  mortgage.  In 
the  case  of  the  Mutual  Ben.  Life 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Rowand,  26  (N.  J.  Eq.) 
389,  it  is  stated:  'The  legislature 
intended  to  make  the  actual  and 
visible  commencement  of  the 
building  notice  to  all  who  might 
propose  either  to  purchase  or  ac- 
quire lens  on  the  property.' ' 
Kansas  Mortgage  Co.  v.  Weyer- 
haeuser, 48  Kan.  335,  29  Pac.  153. 
2  Brooks  V.  Lester,  36  Md.  65. 


130] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


350 


his  part ;  but  if  the  statute  made  the  Hen  run  from  the  "com- 
mencement of  the  building"  it  will  relate  back  to  that  time,^ 
especially  if  the  different  kinds  of  work  constitute  but  parts  of 
one  general  whole.'*  The  staking  of  a  plan,^  the  clearing  of  the 
ground  of  stumps,^  and  the  filling  up  of  a  lot  without  an  in- 
tention of  building,  have  each  been  held  not  the  commencement 
of  a  building  thereafter  put  thereon."  Where  the  delivery  of 
the  materials  fixes  the  time  for  the  beginning  of  the  lien,  it 
will  run  from  the  time  they  are  actually  furnished  for  the 
work,s  at  a  building  where  required.^  Under  some  statutes  it 
has  been  held,  however,  that  the  lien  commences  when  the 
materials  are  ready  for  delivery  at  the  agreed  place. ^^  If  there 
are   several   deliveries   constituting  a  part  of  one   continuous 


3  National  Mortgage  &  Deben- 
ture Co.  V.  Hutchinson  Mfg.  Co., 
6  Kan.  App.  673,  50  Pac.  100. 

4  Parrish's  Appeal,  83  Pa.  St. 
111. 

5  Kelly  V.  Rosenstock,  45  Md. 
389;  Hagenman  v.  Fink,  19  Pa. 
Co.   Ct.    660. 

6  Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Cameron 
Iron  &  Coal  Co.,  47  Fed.  136. 

7  Kiene  v.  Hodge,  90  Iowa,  212, 
57  N.  W.  717;  Jean  v.  Wilson,  38 
Md.  288.  If  the  building  is  com- 
menced, and  then  abandoned,  and 
all  bills  paid  up,  and  then  recom- 
menced, the  time  dates  from  the 
recommencement.  In  re  Smith's 
Estate,  7  Leg.  Gaz.   (Pa.)   31. 

8  California. — McCrea  v.  Craig, 
23   Cal.   522. 

Colorado. — Mellor  v.  Valentine, 
3  Colo.  255. 

Indiana. — Fleming  v.  Bumgar- 
ner,  29  Ind.  424. 

Iowa. — Jones,  &c..  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Murphy,  64  Iowa  165,  19  N.  W. 


Kentucky. — Finck,  &c..  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Mehler,  102  Ky.  Ill,  43 
S.   W.    403,   766. 

Xew  Hampshire. — Graton,  &c., 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Woodworth-Mason  Co., 
69  N.  H.  177,  38  Atl.  790. 

Pennsylvania. — Keller  v.  Den- 
mead,  68  Pa.  St.  449. 

^Visconsin. — Crocker  v.  Currier, 
65   Wis,   662,   27   N.   W.   825. 

9  Treusch  v.  Shryock,  51  Md. 
162;  Bristol-Goodson  Electric 
Light  &c.,  Co.,  V.  Bristol  Gas, 
Electric  Light,  &c.,  Co.,  99  Tenn. 
371,  42  S.  W.  19;  Huttig  Bros. 
INIfg.  Co.  V.  Denny  Hotel  Co.,  6 
Wash.  122,  32  Pac.  1073. 

1"  "The  question  is,  whether  or 
not  the  word  'furnished,'  as  used 
in  the  statute,  means  'delivered 
at  the  building'  in  the  construc- 
tion of  which  materials  are  fur- 
nished. We  think  that  such  is 
not  its  reasonable  construction. 
The  material  man  is  properly  said 
to  have  'furnished'  the  materials, 
when    he    has    delivered,    or    has 


351 


AMOUNT COMMENCEMENT   OF   WORK. 


:§i3o 


transaction,  then  the  lien  will  commence  with  the  first  de- 
livery.ii  g^^-  jf  each  delivery  is  made  under  a  distinct  con- 
tract the  lien  for  each  will  date  from  the  time  of  its  own  de- 
livery.i2  "Where  the  statute  makes  the  lien  date  from  the 
filing  of  the  claim,  then  open  and  visible  work,^-^  or  delivery 
of  the  materials,  will  not  dispense  with  the  statutory  require- 
ments as  to  time  when  the  lien  attaches. i'*  In  the  absence  of 
statutory  provision  the  lien  will  not  relate  back  prior  to  the 
time  when  the  work  was  done  or  the  materials  furnished. ^^ 
But  where  the  lien  does  relate  back,  neither  chansre  of  owner- 


them  ready  for  delivery,  at 
the  place  where  he  has  agreed 
to  deliver  them  under  the  con- 
tract; which,  in  this  case  was  at 
the  plaintiff's  foundry,  some  dis- 
tance from  the  quartz  mill.  This 
point,  therefore,  is  not  tenable." 
Tibbetts  v.   Moore,  23  Cal.   208. 

11  Fields  V.  Daisy  Gold  Min.  Co., 
25  Utah  76,  69  Pac.  528.     See  §  98. 

12  Hensel  v.  Johnson,  94  Md. 
729,   51    Atl.    575. 

13  Cotton  v.  Holden,  1  MacA. 
(D.   C.)    463. 

!■*  Indiana. — Millikin  v.  Arm- 
strong, 17  Ind.  456;  Green  v. 
Green,  16  Ind.  253,  79  Am.  Dec. 
428. 

Louisiana. — Marmillon  v.  Arch- 
inard,  24  La.  Ann.  610.  A  subcon- 
tractor's or  material  man's  lien 
attaches  to  all  money  due  from 
the  owner  to  the  contractor  at 
the  time  of  filing,  or  becoming 
due  within  10  days  thereafter. 
Saginaw  Bay  Co.  v.  Engel,  10 
Ohio    Cir.    Dec.    234. 

Oregon. — Ritchey  v.  Risley,  3 
Ore.    184. 

Pennsylvania. — Reilly  v.  Elli- 
ott,  1   Del.  Co.   Ct.    (Pa.)    77. 


UtJili. — Elwell  v.  Morrow,  28 
Utah  278,  78  Pac.  605. 

15  Arliansas. — White  v.  Chaffin, 
32   Ark.    59. 

California. — Pacific  Mut.  Life 
Ins.  Co.  v.  Fisher,  106  Cal.  224, 
39  Pac.  758;  Davies-Henderson 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Gottschalk,  81  Cal. 
641,  22  Pac.  860;  Barber  v.  Reyn- 
olds, 44  Cal.  519. 

Minnesota. — Cogel  v.  Mickow, 
11    Minn.    475. 

Missouri. — Viti  v.  Dixon,  12  Mo. 
479. 

Aortli  Carolina. — Lookout  Lum- 
ber Co.  v.  Mansion  Hotel,  &c.,  R. 
Co.,  109  N.  Car.  658,  14  S.  E.  35; 
Burr  V.  Maultsby,  99  N.  Car.  263, 
6  S.  E.  108,  6  Am.  St.  517. 

Ohio. — Choteau  v.  Thompson, 
2  Ohio  St.  114;  Williams  v.  Miller, 

2  Ohio   Dec.    (Re.)    119. 

Utah. — Culmer  v.  Caine,  22 
Utah   216,   61   Pac.   1008. 

Federal. — Courtney  v.  Insur- 
ance Co.,  49  Fed.  309,  1  C.  C.  A. 
249,  4  U.  S.  App.  140;  In  re  Hoyt, 

3  Biss.  (U.  S.)  436,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
6805.  Relates  back.  Allen  v. 
Sales,  56  Mo.   28. 


131] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


352 


ship/*'  nor  the  fact  that  materials  have  not  yet  been  delivered, 
will  change  the  rule.^' 

§  131.  Amount  and  extent — duration  of  lien. — When  the 
lien  once  attaches,  it  remains  until  removed  in  the  manner 
provided  by  the  statute,  under  which  it  is  taken  and  can  live 
no  longer.^  The  claimant  may  have  a  subsisting  lien  previous 
to  the  filing  of  his  statement  where  the  statute  permits  a  cer- 
tain length  of  time  for  filing  the  statement.  The  lien  be- 
comes fixed  when  the  statement  is  filed.^     The  destruction  of 


16  McNeal  Pipe  &  Foundry  Co. 
V.  Rowland,  111  N.  Car.  615,  16 
S.  E.  857,  20  L.  R.  A.  743. 

1"  Keating  Implement  Co.  v. 
Marshall  Electric  Light,  &c.,  Co., 
74  Tex.  605,  12  S.  W.  489.  Under 
the  lien  law,  the  lien  of  a  me- 
chanic, though  not  fixed  before 
record  of  the  contract  or  bill  of 
particulars,  when  it  is  fixed,  re- 
lates back  to  the  time  when  the 
work  was  performed  or  the  ma- 
terial furnished,  and  hence  takes 
precedence  of  all  claims  to  the 
property  improved  which  have 
been  fastened  upon  it  since  that 
time.  Trammell  v.  Mount,  G8 
Tex.  210,  4  S.  W.  377,  2  Am.  St. 
479. 

1  Florida, — Eddins  v.  Tweddle, 
35  Fla.  107,  17  So.  66. 

Illinois. — Baxter  v.  Hutchings, 
49  111.  116. 

]Vew  York. — Welch  v.  Njw 
York,   19   Abb.   Pr.    (N.   Y.)    132. 

Peunsjlyania. — Garbian  v.  Mc- 
Gee,  7  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  498;  Knorr  v. 
Elliott,  5  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  49. 
Act  June  17,  1887,  provides  that  a 
debt  for  materials  or  labor  fur- 
nished for  the  erection  of  a  build- 
ing  shall    be    a  lien   for   30   days 


after  the  last  work  shall  be  done, 
though  no  claim  shall  have  been 
filed  therefor,  and  no  longer. 
"The  last  work  done"  refers  to  the 
work  of  the  claimant  and  not  to 
the  completion  of  the  building. 
Egolf  V.  Casselberry,  14  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  87.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit. 
Mechanic's  Liens,  §  174. 

2  Franklin  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Coates,  14  Md.  285.  In  comput- 
ing the  year  within  which  a  me- 
chanic's lien  expires  the  day  of 
filing  the  notice  should  be  exclud- 
ed. Haden  v.  Buddensiek,  6  Daly 
(N.  Y.)  3;  Bird  v.  Skirk,  6  Leg. 
Gaz.  (Pa.)  149,  2  Leg.  Chrou. 
(Pa.)  158.  Under  the  Nebraska  law 
which  gives  to  a  subcontractor 
60  days  from  the  last  day  of  the 
month  in  which  the  labor  was 
done,  or  materials  furnished  to 
file  his  claim  therefor,  and  de- 
clares that  the  lien  shall  con- 
tinue for  two  years  (Consol.  St. 
Neb.  1891,  §§2170,  2171),  the  lien 
of  such  a  contractor  continues, 
not  for  two  years  from  the  expi- 
ration of  the  60  days,  but  only 
for  two  years  from  the  time  when 
the  last  act  was  done  in  the  per- 
formance of  the  contract,  where- 


353 


EXTENT — DURATION   OF  LIEN. 


[§131 


the  building  will  not  extinguish  the  lien.^  As  a  general  rule, 
the  commencement  of  proceedings  to  enforce  the  lien  will  con- 
tinue it,  until  the  property  is  sold  and  the  proceeds  applied  in 
its  payment."*  Under  some  earlier  statutes,  a  judgment  did 
not  continue  the  lien  unless  by  a  special  order  of  the  court.^ 
The  fact  that  the  judgment  is  reversed  on  appeal,  will  not  re- 
move the  lien  unless  the  suit  is  abandoned.^  But  the  right  to 
the  lien  cannot  be  extended  so  as  to  bind  or  exclude  the  rights 
of  other  interested  parties  in  the  property  unless  such  other 
parties  are  properly  made  parties  to  the  suit.'''  If  the  lien  has 
been  discharged  by  the  giving  of  a  bond,  the  bringing  of  the 
suit  will  not  keep  it  alive.^  Unreasonable  neglect  in  prose- 
cuting the  lien  after  it  has  been  commenced,  may  defeat  it,^ 


by  the  lien  first  becomes  deter- 
mined in  amount,  so  as  to  be  com- 
plete and  actionable.  Reynolds 
V.  Manhattan  Trust  Co.,  83  Fed. 
593,  27  C.  C.  A.  620. 

3  Cain  V.  Texas  Bldg.  &  Loan 
Assn.,  21  Tex.  Civ.  App.  61,  51  S. 
W.    879. 

•1  New  York. — Fitzpatrick  v. 
Boylan,  57  N.  Y.  433;  Grant  v. 
Vandercook,  57  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  165; 
McAllister  v.  Case,  15  Daly  (N. 
Y.)  299,  5  N.  Y.  Supp.  918;  Paine 
V.  Bonney,  4  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.) 
734;  In  re  Gabler,  57  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)    148,  107  N.  Y.   Supp.   542. 

Peniisylvania. — People  v.  Lamb, 
3  Lans.  (N.  Y.)  134.  Where 
a  mechanic's  lien  has  been  kept 
in  force,  beyond  the  two  years 
for  which  it  remains  operative, 
by  the  commencement  within  the 
two  years  of  a  suit  on  the  claim, 
the  premises  charged  with  the 
lien  may  be  subjected  to  the  sat- 
isfaction  of  the   lien,   as   against 


a  purchaser  in  good  faith  who 
bought  without  actual  notice  of 
the  plaintiffs  claim  pending  the 
action  thereon,  and  after  the  ex- 
piration of  the  two  years.  Am- 
brose V.  Woodmansee,  27  Ohio  St. 
147. 

•5  Freeman  v.  Cram,  3  N.  Y.  305; 
Mathews  v.  Daley,  7  Abb.  Pr.  (N.S.) 
(N.  Y.)  379;  Schaettler  v.  Gardi- 
ner, 4  Daly  (N.  Y.)  56;  Stone  v. 
Smith,  3  Daly  (N.  Y.)  213;  Bar- 
ton v.  Herman,  3  Daly  (N.  Y.)  320, 
8  Abb.  Pr.   (N.  S.)    (N.  Y.)    399. 

6  Fox  V.  Kidd,  77  N.  Y.  489; 
Hoag  V.  Hillemeyer,  1  N.  Y.  St. 
549. 

7  Falconer  v.  Cochran,  68  Minn. 
405,  71  N.  W.  386;  Danziger  v. 
Simonson,  116  N.  Y.  329,  22  N.  E. 
570. 

8  Sheffield  v.  Robinson,  73  Hun 
(N.  Y.)    173,  25  N.  Y.   Supp.  1098. 

9  Ward  V.  Patterson,  46  Pa.  St. 
372;  Sweeny  v.  McGittigan,  20  Pa. 
St.  319;  Cornelius  v.  Uhler,  2 
Browne    (Pa.)    229. 


23 


132] 


OPERATION   AND   EFFECT   OF   PERFECTED   LIEN. 


354 


but  not  so,  it  is  thought,  if  the  defendant  is  in  court  and  does 
not  insist  on  speedy  action. ^^  If  the  statute  prescribes  a 
method  for  continuing  the  lien  this  must  be  followed.^  ^  Tf 
the  right  to  the  lien  has  expired  it  cannot  be  revived  by  new 
work, ^2  whether  made  under  a  new  contract  or  any  contract. ^^ 
Neither  can  the  owner  revive  the  lien,^^  nor  can  it  be  con- 
tinued by  a  nunc  pro  tunc  entry.^^  What  the  statute  requires 
to  be  done  to  continue  a  lien,  must  be  done  within  the  time 
provided  by  statute  or  the  right  is  lost.^^  But  the  debt  may 
survive,  though  the  lien  is  lost.^" 

§  132.  Property  reached  by  lien. — In  a  previous  section,^ 
consideration  was  given  to  the  property  subject  to  the  lien. 
We  are  now  to  consider  what  is  actually  made  subject  to  the 
lien  and  it  will  be  well  to  remember  that  since  the  lien  has 
for  its  purpose  the  insurance  of  payment  for  material  and 
work  that  has  enhanced  the  value  of  certain  property,  it  is  essen- 
tial, therefore,  to  a  valid  lien  that  the  work  or  material  should 
have  been  actually  put  on  the  property  and  that  the  material  should 
have  lost  its  identity.     The  lien  attaches  to  the  property  as  a 


10  Brown  v.  Jacobi,  10  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)   335. 

11  Barton  v.  Herman,  3  Daly 
(N.  Y.)  320,  8  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.) 
(X.  Y.)  399;  Hood  v.  Norton,  202 
Pa.  114.  .51  Atl.  748;  In  re  Gould 
Coupler  Co.,  79  Hun  (N.  Y.)  206, 
29  N.  Y.  Supp.  622;  Darrow  v. 
Morgan,  65  N.  Y.  333;  McGuckin 
V.  Coulter,  1  Jones  &  S.  (33  N. 
Y.  Super.)  324,  10  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.) 
(N.  Y.)   128. 

12  Farnham  v.  Davis.  79  Me. 
282,  9  Atl.  725.    See  §§  97,  98. 

13  Darrlngton  v.  Moore,  88  Me. 
569,  34  Atl.  419. 

14  Jones  V.  Alexander,  10  Sm.  & 
M.  (Miss.)  627;  Lyon  v.  Elser,  72 
Tex.  304,  12  S.  W.  177. 


15  Dart  V.  Fitch,  23  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
361;  Poerschke  v.  Kedenburg,  6 
Abb.  Pr.   (N.  S.)   (N.  Y.)  172. 

16  Blocher  v.  Worthington,  10 
Md.  1.  A  refiling  before  the  ex- 
piration of  the  first  year  contin- 
ues the  lien  indefinitely  until  the 
order  of  continuance  is  vacated, 
or  the  lien  is  disposed  of  in  one 
of  the  other  ways  provided  by 
the  statute.  Bigelow  v.  Bailey,  59 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  403,  13  N.  Y.  Supp. 
362,  36  N.  Y.  St.  636.  Where  judg- 
ment is  obtained  within  the  year, 
no  formal  order  to  continue  the 
lien  is  necessary. 

1"  Hunter  v.  Lanning,  76  Pa.  St. 
25. 

1  See  §  10. 


355 


PROPERTY   REACHED   BY   LIEN. 


[§132 


whole/''  and  therefore  no  lien  will  attach  to  a  part  of  the  en- 
tirety. Thus  a  lien  on  a  saw  mill  building  will  not 
reach  lumber  sawed  in  the  mill  ;^^  nor  on  any  specific  articles 
furnished  for  the  building  as  separate  from  the  building  itself,^ 
and  not  attached  thereto.^  However,  the  fact  that  the 
lien  statement  is  so  drawn  that  it  does  not  cover  all  that  it 
might,  will  not  seriously  afifect  it,  especially  as  to  the  owner.^ 
Where  the  statute  fixes  the  extent  of  land  that  may  be  sub- 
ject to  the  lien,  the  parties  may  by  agreement  reduce  or  extend 
a  statutory  limit,^  but  the  lien  holder  cannot  claim  more  than 
he  described  in  his  statement.*^  As  a  general  rule,  the  lien  is  lim- 
ited to  the  "lot  of  land"  upon  which  the  improvement  is  lo- 
cated,'^ "together,'^  according  to  some  statutes,  "with  a  con- 
venient space  or  so  much  as  may  be  required  for  convenient 
use  and  occupation"  of  the  improvement,^  or  that  may  be  "nec- 
essary for  the  purpose  of  the  building."^  And  generally  the 
lien  upon  the  building  carries  with  it  the  right  to  the  lien  on  the 
land  upon  which  the  building  is  situated  or  so  much  of  it  as  is 


la  Eccles  Lumber  Co.  v.  Mar- 
tin, 31  Utah  241,  87  Pac.  713.  See 
Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanic's 
Liens,   §  180. 

lb  Russell  V.  Painter,  50  Ark. 
244,  7  S.  W.  35. 

2  Baylies  v.  Sinex,  21   Ind.  45. 

3  See  §104;  Wagar  v.  Briscoe, 
38  Mich.  587.  Tools  used  in  a 
manufacturing  plant  not  included. 
Haeussler  v.  Missouri  Glass  Co., 
52  Mo.  452.  Not  for  work  done 
on  other  and  separate  property. 
Findlay  v.  Roberts,  19  Ga.  163. 
That  mechanics'  liens  do  not  at- 
tach to  other  premises  separate 
and  distinct  from  those  upon 
which  the  improvement  or  repair 
is  made,  is  a  rule  of  law  too  well 
settled,  to  require  any  citation  of 
authorities    to    support    it.      Lam- 


bert V.  Williams,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
413,  21  S.  W.  108. 

4  Culmer  v.  Clift,  14  Utah  280, 
47  Pac.  85. 

■5  Sheffield  Furnace  Co.  v.  With- 
erow,  149  U.  S.  574,  37  L.  ed.  853, 
13  Sup.  Ct.  936. 

6  McDonald  v.  Lindall,  3  Rawle 
(Pa.)   492. 

"'  See   §  135. 

8  Tunis  v.  Lakeport  Agricultur- 
al Park  Assn.,  98  Cal.  285,  33  Pac. 
63,  447.  Designed  means  adapted. 
Piltson  Farm  Co.  v.  Henderson, 
106  Md.  335,  67  Atl.  228. 

9  Nelson  v.  Campbell,  28  Pa.  St. 
156;  Brown  v.  Peterson,  2 
Woodw.  Dec.  (Pa.)  112;  Stearns- 
Roger  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Aztec  Gold  Min. 
&  Mill.  Co.,  —  N.  Mex.  — ,  93 
Pac.  706. 


§  132]     OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


356 


necessary  to  the  full  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  property. ^"^ 
When  there  are  no  visible  divisions  the  entire  tract  is  con- 
sidered as  the  "lot  of  land."^^  The  fact  that  a  small  part 
has  a  fence  around  it,  will  not  be  a  segregation  of  such  part. ^2 
And  this  rule  will  extend  to  several  buildings  on 
the  same  tract/^  if  the  buildings  are  all  considered 
as  one  by  the  owner. ^^  As  to  what  may  be  included  depends 
largely  upon  the  facts  at  the  time  the  contract  was  made.^^ 
Under  some  statutes,  the  court  may  order  a  part  sold  if  it  does 
not  injure  the  remainder/*'  or  the  defendant  may  so  sell.^' 
If  through  the  owner's  fault,  the  whole  building  is 
not  erected,  this  will  not  prevent  the  lien  extending  to  the 
entire  part,^^  but  it  is  error  to  include  more  than  is  legally 
liable.!'' 

§  133.     Extent  of  tract  of  land  covered  by  lien, — If  the  build- 
ing is  on  a  larger  tract  than  allowed  by  law,  and  the  law  does 


10  California. — Ward  v.  Crane, 
118  Cal.  676,  50  Pac.  839. 

Connecticut. — Lindsay  v.  Gun- 
ning, 59  Conn.  296,  22  Atl.  310; 
11  L.  R.  A.   553. 

New  Jersey. — Edwards  v.  Der- 
rickson,  4  Dutch  N.  J.  L.  39 ;  Van- 
dyne  V.  Vanness,  1  Halst.  Cli.  (N. 
J.    Eq.)     485. 

'Seyv  Mexico. — Mountain  Elec- 
tric Co.  V.  Miles,  9  N.  Mex.  512,  56 
Pac.  284.  What  is  necessary 
questions  for  the  jury  in  some 
instances.  Keppell  v.  Jackson,  3 
Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  320;  Dean  \. 
Pyncheon,  3  Chand.  (Wis.)  9,  3 
Pinn.    (Wis.)    17. 

11  St.  Louis  Nat.  Stock  Yards 
V.  O'Pveilly,  85  111.  546;  Orr.  v. 
Fuller,  172  Mass.  597,  52  N.  E. 
1091. 

12  Broyhill  v.  Gaither,  119  N. 
Car.   443,   26   S.  E.   31. 


13  Small  V.  Foley,  8  Colo.  App. 
435,  47   Pac.  64. 

14  Pennock  v.  Hoover,  5  Rawle 
(Pa.)    291. 

i3  Le  Forgee  v.  Colby,  69  111. 
App.  443;  Badger  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Malone,  8  Kan.  App.  121,  54  Pac. 
692;  Baker  v.  Waldron,  92  Me.  17, 
42  Atl.  225,  69  Am.  St.  483;  Col- 
lins V.  Patch,  156  Mass.  317,  31 
N.  E.  295. 

ic  North  Presbyterian  Church 
V.  Jevne,  32  111.  214,  83  Am.  Dec. 
261;  Springer  Land  Assn.  v.  Ford, 
168  U.  S.  513,  42  L.  ed.  562,  IS 
Sup.  Ct.  170. 

17  Broyhill  v.  Gaither,  119  N. 
Car.  443,  26  S.  E.  31. 

18  Hill  V.  La  Crosse,  &c.,  R.  Co., 
11  Wis.  214. 

19  A  burial  ground  is  not  sub- 
ject to  a  lien.  Beam  v.  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  3  Clark  (Pa.) 
343. 


357  TRACT   COVERED   BY   LIEN.  [§  l'^'^ 

not  state  who  shall  define  the  boundaries,  the  claimant  may 
do  so/  or  the  court  may  do  so,  to  the  best  interests  of  all  con- 
cerned.^  It  is  error  to  decree  the  sale  of  more  than 
is  permitted  by  law.^  Unless  the  land  forms  some  part,  either 
as  an  appurtenant  or  otherwise,^  of  the  land  upon  which  the 
building  is  located,  it  cannot  be  used  to  satisfy  a  lien  or  claim 
for  work  or  materials  furnished  for  the  building.^  Where  the 
statute  gives  the  lien  on  a  "lot  of  land"  this  does  not  mean  a 
lot  that  is  platted  or  a  town  plat,  but  what  is  used  and  con- 
sidered by  the  owner  as  one  lot  or  tract.*'  But  in  the  absence 
of  proof  to  the  contrary  it  will  not  be  considered  less  than 
would  be  included  in  a  city  lot  where  the  same  is  so 
platted.'^  As  between  the  owner  and  contractor,  it  is 
error  to  take  a  lien  on  less  than  the  law  allows,  but  if  such 
action  results  in  prejudice  to  others,  it  will  not  be  per- 
mitted.s  In  other  words  if  no  one  is  prejudiced,  so  much  may 
be  taken  as  may  be  reasonably  convenient  for  the  use  of  the 
building.^ 

§  134.    Extent  of  tract  of  land  covered  by  lien  (continued). — 
Where  the  buildings  are  upon  farms  the  lien,  as  a  general  rule,  will 

1  Tuttle  V.  Howe,  14  Minn.  145,      Lone  v.  Whittemore,   19   111.  App. 
100   Am.    Dec.    205.      See    Dec.    &      447. 

Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  New  Mexico. — ^Ford  v.  Springer 
§  181.  Land  Assn.,  8  N.  Mex.  37,  41  Pac. 

2  Hill  V.  La  Crosse,  &c.,  R.  Co.,      541. 

11  Wis.  214.  6  Warren   v.    Hopkins,   110   Cal 

3  White  V.  Chaffln,   32  Ark.   59;       506,  42  Pac.  986;   Holland  v.  Mc- 
Colorado    Iron    Works    v.    Taylor,      Carty,    24   Mo.   App.    82;    Choteau 

12  Colo.  App.  451,  55  Pac.  942;  v.  Thompson,  2  Ohio  St.  114;  Hill 
Engleman  v.  Graves,  47  Mo.   348.  v.  La  Crosse,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  11  Wis. 

4  See  §  138.  214. 

5  Illinois.— Paddock       v.     Stout,  7  Pairo  v.  Bethell,  75  Va.  825. 
121  111.  571,  13  N.  E.  182;   Wood-  §  whalen   v.   Collins,   164   Mass; 
burn  V.  Gifford,  66  111.  285;  Seller  146,  41  N.  E.  124. 

V.  Schaefer,  40  111.  App.  74;  Stout  9  Bank  v.  Curtiss,  18  Conn.  342, 

V.    Sower,    22    111.    App.    65;    Van      46  Am.  Dec.  325. 


134] 


OPERATION   AND   EFFECT   OF   PERFECTED    LIEN. 


358 


include  the  entire  tract  that  is  used  as  one  farm.^*^  A  statute 
which  allows  the  lien  on  land  on  which  the  building  is  situ- 
ated together  with  so  much  of  the  land  about  it  as  may  be  re- 
quired for  convenient  use  and  occupation,  does  not  contem- 
plate a  larger  tract  than  that  indicated.  In  one  case  it  was 
held  that  it  would  not  cover  a  forty-acre  tract.^^  As  a  gen- 
eral rule,  each  separate  lot  must  bear  the  burden  of  the  build- 
ing erected  thereon. 12  And  while  the  lien  is  attached  to  sev- 
eral buildings  on  different  lots,  the  lien  holder  may  have  his 
lien  satisfied  out  of  any  one  of  the  separate  lots,^^  or  build- 
ings.^'* But  if  this  interferes  with  the  rights  of  third  persons, 
then  only  the  buildings  and  lot  upon  which  the  labor  was 
done  may  be  held.^^ 


10  Cowan  V.  Griffith,  108  Cal. 
224,  41  Pac.  42,  49  Am.  St.  82. 
Plaintiff  erected  a  creamery,  silo, 
barn  and  cow  stable  on  defend- 
ant's farm  of  350  acres.  The 
buildings  erected  were  all  near  to 
each  other,  occupying  a  lot  in  the 
interior  of  the  farm.  In  an  ac- 
tion to  enforce  a  builder's  lien 
against  the  buildings  and  farm, 
it  was  held  that  such  lien  extend- 
ed to  the  whole  of  the  farm,  both 
as  against  the  owner  and  his  cred- 
itors, under  a  statute  which  pro- 
vides that  "every  building  in  the 
construction  or  repairs  of  which 

any  person  shall  have  a 

claim  for  materials  furnished  r 
services  rendered  shall,  with  the 
land  on  which  the  same  may 
stand,  be  subject  to  the  payment 
of  such  claim."  Lindsay  v.  Gun- 
ning, 59  Conn.  296,  22  Atl.  310, 
11  L.  R.  A.  553;  In  re  Wismer's 
Estate,  2  Pa.  Ct.  Ct.  387;  Filston 
Farm  Co.  v.  Henderson,  106  Md. 
335,    67   Atl.    228. 

11  It    is    not    meant    that    suffi- 


cient land  about  the  dwelling  to 
support  the  owner  while  living 
on  the  land  shall  be  subject  to 
the  lien.  Cowan  v.  Griffith,  108 
Cal.  224,  41  Pac.  42,  49  Am.  St. 
82.  Owner  must  act  if  he  would 
have  less  sold.  Fulton  v.  Parlett, 
104  Md.  62,  64  Atl.  58. 

12  See  §  138. 

13  McCormack  v.  Phillips,  4 
Dak.  506,  34  N.  W.  39;  Livingston 
V.Miller,  16  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  371; 
Stewart  v.  McQuaide,  48  Pa.  St. 
195;  Bradley  Co.  v.  Gaghan,  208 
Pa.  511,  57  Atl.  985. 

14  Dalles  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Wasco  Woolen  Mfg.  Co.,  3  Ore. 
527. 

It  Alabama. — Leftwich  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Florence  Mut.  Bldg.  Loan 
&  Savings  Assn..  104  Ala.  584,  18 
So.  48. 

Illinois Culver     v.   Elwell,    73 

111.  536. 

Indiana. — Stephens  v.  Duffy,  81 
N.  E.  1154,  41  Ind.  App.  385,  83 
N.  E.   268. 

Jfew  York. — Paine  v.  Bonney,  4 


359 


LOT  OF  L/VND   COVERED  BY  LIEN. 


135 


§  135.  Lot  of  land  covered  by  lien. — The  fact  that  there  is 
another  building  on  the  land,  not  shown  to  be  separate,  will 
not  prevent  the  lien  attaching  to  all.^  When  joint  tenants 
divide  their  land  and  take  possession  of  their  several  parts, 
although  no  deed  passes,  and  one  of  the  parties  has  a  house 
erected  on  his  part,  his  part  only  is  liable  for  the  lien.^  Where 
work  is  done  on  a  building,  which  is  then  removed  to  another 
tract,  and  again  work  is  done  thereon,  it  has  been  held  that  the 
lien  will  extend  to  both  tracts.-^  Subcontractors  stand  in  the 
same  position  as  the  principal  contractor  with  reference  to  ob- 
taining a  lien  on  buildings  and  land  separate  from  each  other. ^ 
Generally  where  it  is  proper  to  include  both  buildings  and 
land  in  one  lien  statement''  a  lien  can  be  enforced  on  all.*^  If 
the  lien  statement  is  required  to  be  separate,  then  that  would 


E.   D.   Smith    (N.  Y.)    734,   6  Abb. 
Pr.    (N.  Y.)    99. 

Jfebraska,  —  Badger  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Holmes,  44  Neb.  244,  62  N. 
W.  446,  48  Am.  St.  726.  Byrd  v. 
Cochran,  39  Neb.  109,  58  N.  W. 
127.  Where  a  building  was  erected 
upon  a  tract  of  land  comprising 
1,293  acres,  embracing  a  number 
of  separate  parcels,  each  with  its 
own  original  dwelling  and  appro- 
priate outbuildings  still  occupied 
for  farming  purposes,  with  the 
boundaries  and  fences  between 
them  maintained,  the  whole  tract 
was  not  subject  to  a  mechanic's 
lien.  Filston  Farm  Co.  v.  Hender- 
son,  106  Md.  335,  67  Atl.  228. 

1  Bergsma  v.  Dewey,  46  Minn. 
357,  49  N.  W.  57.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.    tit.   Mechanics'   Liens,    §  183. 

2  Otis  V.  Cusack,  43  Barb.  (,N. 
Y.)    546. 

3  Steigleman  v.  McBride,  17  HI. 
300. 

4  Parties     contracting     for       a 


"builders'  lien"  will  be  construed 
to  have  used  the  term  in  its  stat- 
utory sense,  as  including  the 
land.  June  v.  Doke,  35  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  240,  80  S.  W.  402.  Under 
Virginia  Code  1873,  c.  115,  §  3, 
which  provides  that  persons  "per- 
forming labor,  or  furnishing  ma- 
trials,  for  the  construction,  re- 
pair, or  improvement  of  any 
building,  or  other  property,  shall 
have  a  lien  upon  such  property," 
a  subcontractor  who  furnishes 
materials  for  the  construction  of 
two  houses  erected  under  a  single 
contract  on  lots  on  opposite  sides 
of  a  street  has  a  joint  lien  on 
both  houses  and  lots  for  the  en- 
tire amount  of  materials  fur- 
nished for  both  houses.  Sergeant 
V.  Denby,  87  Va.  206,  12  S.  E. 
402. 

5  See    §  85. 

6  Mahon  v.  Surerus,  9  N.  Dak. 
57,  81  N.  W.  64;  Peck  v.  Standart, 
1  111.  App.  228;   Christian  v.  Hli- 


§135] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


360 


control  as  to  the  enforcement  of  the  lienJ  If  the  lien  covers 
all,  and  one  is  released  or  waived,  as  between  the  parties  that 
part  must  be  excepted  from  the  lien.*  If  several  buildings 
are  on  the  same  lot,  in  order  that  one  lien  shall  cover  all,  they 
must  be  erected  for  some  general  connected  use.^  And  if 
they  are  not  so,  where  the  rights  of  third  persons  intervene, 
the  lien  must  be  apportioned  according  to  the  work  and  ma- 
terials going  into  each.^^  As  between  the  parties,  even  though 
the  contracts  are  separate,  all  being  on  one  tract,  the  entire 
tract  may  be  applied  to  payment  of  the  lien.^^  This  will  be 
true  even  if  the  tracts  are  subdivided,  provided  the  subdivision 


nois  Malleable  Iron  Co.,  92  111. 
App.  320.  Comp.  St.  Nebraska, 
1901,  c.  54,  art.  1,  provides  that 
one  who  furnishes  material  for  a 
house  to  a  person  in  possession 
of  land  who  is  not  an  owner 
thereof  can  have  a  lien  on  the 
buildings.  Shull  v.  Best,  (Neb.) 
93  N.  W.  753.  Where  the  structure 
on  which  work  was  performed, 
though  arranged  for  use  as  two 
dwelling  houses,  was  one  build- 
ing, a  mechanic's  lien  may  be  en- 
forced against  the  structure  as 
one  building  for  the  whole  amount 
due  for  work  done  on  each  house. 
Getchell  v.  Moran,  124  Mass.  404. 
"  Landers  v.  Dexter,  106  Mass. 
531;  Hays  v.  Goodman,  16  Montg. 
Co.  L.   Rep'r,  43. 

8  Maryland  Brick  Co.  v.  Dun- 
kerly,  85  Md.  199,  36  Atl.  761. 

9  Ewing  V.  Allen,  99  Iowa  379, 
68  N.  W.  702;  Fulton  v.  Parlett, 
104  Md.  62,  65  Atl.  58.  A  stack 
constructed  in  a  pork  house,  es- 
sential both  for  the  pork  house 
and  a  distillery,  whether  the  dis- 
tillery is  attached  to  the  pork 
house  or  not,  and  though  the  pork 


house  may  be  used  independently 
of  the  distillery,  yet,  being  erect- 
ed for  and  necessary  to  both  es- 
tablishments must  be  regarded  as 
a  part  thereof;  and  the  account 
for  constructing  the  stack  is  a 
lien  upon  both.  Bodley  v.  Den- 
mead,   1   W.  Va.   249. 

lOTaylor  v.  Montgomery,  20  Pa. 
St.  443.  Houses  separately  mort- 
gaged, etc.  Wilcox  V.  Woodruff, 
61  Conn.  578,  24  Atl.  521,  1056,  29 
Am.   St.  222,  17  L.  R.  A.  314n. 

11  California.  —  Macomber  v. 
Bigelow,  126  Cal.  9,  58  Pac.  312. 

Illiuois. — St.  Louis  Nat.  Stock 
Yards  v.  O'Reilly,  85  111.  546. 

Kansas. — Mulvane  v.  Chicago 
Lumber  Co.,  56  Kan.  675,  44  Pac. 
613. 

Maryland. — Okisko  Co.  v.  Mat- 
thews,  3   Md.   168. 

Massachusetts.  —  Quimby  v. 
Durgin,  148  Mass.  104,  19  N.  E. 
14,  1  L.  R.  A.  514;  Wall  v.  Robin- 
son, 115  Mass.  429. 

Minnesota. — Glass  v.  St.  Paul 
Park  Carriage,  &c.,  Co.,  43  Minn. 
228,  45  N.  W.  150. 


561 


LOT  OF  LAND  COVERED  BY  LIEN. 


§136 


is  made  after  the  original  contract  was  entered  into. ^2  jf  the 
work  is  on  separate  contiguous  lots  with  no  visible  line  between 
them,  a  lien  for  labor  or  materials  furnished  under  one  contract  at- 
taches to  all  in  preference  to  a  mortgage  given  on  one,  the  mort- 
gage being  given  after  the  building  contract  is  entered  into.^^ 

§  136.     Land  covered  by  lien — several  houses  on  tract. — As 

a  general  rule,  all  of  the  block  of  houses  on  one  tract  erected 
under  one  contract,  will  be  covered  by  a  single  lien.^  In  some 
cases  the  court,  where  justice  is  subserved,  may  apportion 
it  between  the  several  houses.^  As  a  general  rule,  it  may  be 
said  that  one  lien  cannot  extend  to  separate  buildings  on  differ- 
ent lots.2  If  the  lots  are  city  lots,  adjoining  or  so  contiguous 
as  to  be  considered  as  one  lot  of  land,  and  all  the  erections 
are  made  under  one  contract,  then  the  lien  may  extend  to  the 


12  Fried  v.  Blanchard,  58  111. 
App.  622;  Pflueger  v.  Lewis  Foun- 
dry, &c.,  Co.,  134  Fed.  28,  67  C. 
C.  A.  102.  West  Philadelphia 
Brick  Co.  v.  Johnson,  3  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  220,  39  W.  N.  C.   (Pa.)   509. 

13  Perkins  v.  Boyd,  37  Colo. 
265,  86  Pac.  1045;  McAuliffe  v. 
Jorgenson,  107  Wis.  132,  82  N.  W. 
706;  Batchelder  v.  Rand,  117 
Mass.  176.  Under  a  statutory  pro- 
vision that  the  "entire  land  upon 
which  any  such  building  erection 
or  other  improvement  is  situ- 
ated, including  that  portion  not 
covered  therewith,"  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  a  mechanic's  lien,  where 
there  were  separate  buildings  not 
erected  under  one  contract,  the 
lien  does  not  extend  to  all,  but 
only  to  those  for  which  the  ma- 
terials were  furnished  and  so 
much  of  the  lot  as  was  properly 
appurtenant  thereto.       Ewing     v. 


Allen,  99  Iowa  379,  68  N.  W.  702. 

1  Brabazon  v.  Allen,  41  Conn. 
361;  Worthley  v.  Emerson,  116 
Mass.  374;  Central  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Braddock  Land  &  Granite  Co.,  84 
Ark.  560,  105  S.  W.  583. 

2  Goldheim  v.  Clark,  68  Md. 
498,  13  Atl.  363;  Fitzpatrick  v.  Al- 
len, 80  Pa.  St.  292.  Held  that 
where  three  buildings  are  erected 
under  an  entire  contract  on  three 
lots,  one  of  which  is  separated 
from  the  others,  the  lien  for  the 
labor  and  materials  furnished 
for  all  does  not  extend  to  each 
lot.  Guarantee  Sav.,  &:c.,  Co.  v. 
Cash,  99  Tex.  555,  91  S.  W.  781. 

3  See  §85;  Landers  v.  Dexter, 
106  Mass.  531;  Buckely  v.  Com- 
mercial Nat.  Bank,  62  111.  App. 
202;  Fried  v.  Blanchard,  58  111. 
App.  622;  Steigleman  v.  McBride, 
17  111.  300.  Applies  to  subcon- 
tractors. Knauft  V.  Miller,  45 
Minn.  61,  47  N.  W.  313. 


136] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


362 


entire  tract. ^  Where  a  separate  statement  or  account  is  kept 
as  to  what  each  building  is  chargeable  with,-^  one  block  of 
houses  should  not  be  charged  for  the  expense  of  all.^  But  this 
must  not  affect  the  rights  of  third  persons."  The  fact  that  at 
one  time  the  land  upon  which  the  building  erected  was  in  two 
tracts  will  not  prevent  it  from  being  considered  as  one,  so  far 
as  the  lien  is  concerned,^  if  treated  as  such  by  the  owner.^ 
Where  a  solid  block  of  houses  is  built  over  several  contiguous 
lots,  one  lien  will  cover  all,^*^  and  even  if  not  solid,  if  all  are 


•1  Badger  Lumber  Co.  v.  Holmes, 
44  Neb.  244,  62  N.  W.  446,  48  Am 
St.  726;  Maryland  Brick  Co.  v. 
Spilman,  76  Md.  337,  25  Atl.  297. 
3.5  Am.  St.  431,  17  L.  R.  A.  599; 
Doolittle  V.  Plenz,  16  Neb.  153.  20 
N.  W.  116;  Lyon  v.  Logan,  68  Tex. 
521,  5  S.  W.  72,  2  Am.  St.  511. 

5  Williams  v.  Judd-Wells  Co  , 
91  Iowa  378,  59  N.  W.  271,  51  Am. 
St.  350. 

6  Badger  Lumber  Co.  v.  Holmes, 
55  Neb.  473,  76  X.  W.  174. 
Where  building  material  has 
been  ordered  for  the  con- 
struction of  several  houses  on 
a  certain  tract  of  land,  which,  be- 
fore all  of  the  material  has  been 
delivered,  or  a  lien  filed,  is  subdi- 
vided according  to  the  number  of 
houses,  the  lien  must  be  appor- 
tioned and  charged  pro  rata 
against  the  house.  Blanchard  v. 
Fried,  162  111.  462,  44  N.  E.  SSO. 

7  Metzger  v.  McCann,  92  III. 
App.  109;  Friedlaender  v.  McCann, 
91  111.  App.  415. 

s  Defendant  bought  one  of  two 
adjoining  pieces  of  land,  and  took 
a  50-year  lease  of  the  other.  He 
erected  an  exterior  fence,  inclo.5- 
ing  both  lots,  pulled  down  the  di- 
vision   fence,    built    a    continuous 


dock  for  coal  along  the  entire 
river  front  of  both  lots,  and  used 
the  whole  tract  as  a  coal  yard. 
Held,  that  a  lien  under  a  single 
contract  covered  both  lots  as  a 
single  lien.  Marston  v.  Kenyon, 
44  Conn.  349. 

9  Colorado. — Small  v.  Foley,  8 
Colo.  App.   435,   47   Pac.   64. 

Micliigan. — Lamont  v.  La  Fevre, 
96  Mich.  175,  55  N.  W.  687. 

Minnesota. — Miller  v.  Shepard, 
50  Minn.  268,  52  N.  W.  894;  Wake- 
field v.  Latey,  39  Neb.  285,  57  N. 
W.  1002;  Miller  v.  Schmitt,  67  N. 
Y.  Supp.  1077.  Under  a  law  giv- 
ing a  lien  upon  a  "building  or 
structure,  and  upon  the  interest 
of  the  owner  thereof  in  the  lot  of 
land  upon  which  the  same  is  situ- 
ated," such  a  lien  will  include  sev- 
eral adjoining  lots  inclosed  by  a 
common  fence,  and  used  and  con- 
trolled by  the  owner  of  the  build- 
ing for  one  common  and  avowed 
purpose,  though  as  to  some  he  is 
not  the  absolute  owner.  Ex  Parte 
Davis,  9  Rich.  (S.  Car.)  204. 

10  Berndt  v.  Armknecht,  50  111. 
App.  467;  James  v.  Hambletou, 
42  111.  308;  Lax  v.  Peterson,  42 
Minn.  214,  44  N.  W.  3. 


363 


LOT    OF    LAND CONTIGUOUS. 


[§137 


used  as  one,  the  lien  will  cover  all.^^  Where  separate  owners 
join  together  in  the  erection  of  one  or  several  buildings  on  con- 
tiguous lots,  one  lien  may  cover  all.^^  A  claimant  may  en- 
force his  lien  on  each  separately  where  he  has  kept  a  separate 
account. ^^  And  it  would  be  proper  for  the  court  in  the  inter- 
est of  justice,  to  apportion  the  amount  that  each  should  receive, 
where  several  parties  are  interested. ^^ 

§  137.  Lien  on  contiguous  lots — Ohio  statute — Section 
3184d  of  the  Ohio  statute  provides  that  when  the  improvement 
consists  of  two  or  more  buildings  united  together,  and  situated 
upon  the  same  lot,  or  contiguous  lots,  or  upon  separate  build- 
ings upon  contiguous  lots,  and  directed  under  one  general 
contract,  it  shall  not  be  necessary  to  file  a  separate  lien  upon 
each  building  for  the  w^ork  done  or  material  furnished  in  the 
erection  of  such  improvements.^^ 

§  138.  Building,  fixtures  and  appurtenances,  covered  by 
lien. — A  great  majority  of  states  do  not  recognize  a  mechanics' 
lien  upon  a  building  or  structure  erected  separate  and  apart 
from  the  land  upon  which  it  is  located. ^     And  if  there  can  be 


11  Holland  v.  Cunliff,  96  Mo. 
App.  67,  69  S.  W.  737;  Hooven, 
&c.,  Co.  V.  Peatherstone,  111  Fed. 
81,  49  C.  C.  A.  229. 

12  Melxell  V.  Griest,  1  Kan. 
App.  145,  40  Pac.  1070;  Carpenter 
V.  Leonard,  5  Minn.  155;  Menzel 
V.  Tubbs,  51  Minn.  364,  53  N.  W. 
653,  1017,  17  L.  R.  A.  815;  Fuller- 
ton  V.  Leonard,  3  S.  Dak.  118,  52 
N.  W.  325. 

i'5  Hannon  v.  Logan,  14  Mo.  App. 
33;  Hayden  v.  Logan,  9  Mo.  App. 
492;  Byrd  v.  Cochran,  39  Neb.  109, 
58  N.  W.  127;  Edwards  v.  Ed- 
wards, 24  Ohio  St.  402. 

14  Ballon  V.  Black,  17  Neb.  389, 
23  N.  W.  3;  Edwards  v.  Edwards. 


24  Ohio  St.  402.  If  the  contracts 
are  separate,  the  liens  should  be 
separate.  Meek  v.  Parker,  63 
Ark.  367,  38  S.  W.  900,  58  Am.  St. 
119. 

15  Act  Apr.  15;  86  Ohio  Laws, 
373,  374;  Edwards  v.  Edwards,  24 
Ohio  St.  402.     See  §§   135  and  136. 

1  Iowa. — See  §  10.  Early  v.  Burt, 
68  Iowa  716,  28  N.  W.  35. 

Kentucky. — Fetter  v.  Wilson,  12 
B.  Mon.    (Ky.)    90. 

Minnesota. — King  v.  Smith,  42 
Minn.  286,  44  N.  W.  65. 

Missonri. — General  Fire  Extin- 
guisher Co.  V.  Schwartz  Bros. 
Com.   Co.,   165   Mo.   171,   65   S.   W. 


138] 


OPERATION   AND   EFFECT   OF   PERFECTED   LIEN. 


364 


no  lien  on  the  land,  there  is  none  on  the  building.^  Under  the 
statutes  of  comparatively  few  of  the  states,  the  lien  is  given 
on  the  building  alone  and  separate  from  the  land  upon  which 
it  is  located.^  And  sometimes  the  lien  is  upon  the  building, 
and  the  interest  that  the  person  erecting  the  same  has  in  the 
land,  and  if  he  has  none  in  the  land,  in  order  that  the  mechanic 
shall  not  lose  his  claim,  it  is  allowed  on  the  building.'*  When 
the  work  is  once  done,  on  one  building,  the  improvement  or  build- 
ing loses  its  identity  separate  and  apart  from  the  land,  and  all 
where  there  are  several,  become  liable  to  prior  liens  on  the 


318;  State  v.  Hailey,  71  Mo.  App. 
200. 

PennsylTania. — In  re  Olympic 
Theatre,  2  Browne  (Pa.)  275. 

Terniont. — Roby  v.  University 
of  Vermont,  36  Vt.  565,  86  Am. 
Dec.    675. 

Washington. — Wright   v.   Cowie, 

5  Wash.  341,  31  Pac.  878;  Kellogg 
V.  Littell,  &c.,  Mfg.  Co.,  1  Wash. 
St.  407.  25  Pac.  461.  See  Dec.  & 
Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§185. 

2  Jessup  v.  Stone,  13  Wis.  466 
[521] ;  Rees  v.  Ludington,  13  Wis. 
308,  80  Am.  Dec.  741. 

3  Gaskill  V.  Davis,  66  Ga.  665; 
Planters'  Bank  v.  Dodson,  9   Sm. 

6  M.  (Miss.)  527;  Kansas  City  Ho- 
tel Co.  V.  Sauer,  65  Mo.  279. 

4  Iowa. — Estabrook  v.  Riley,  81 
Iowa  479,  46  N.  W.  1072,  10  L.  R. 
A.  33n. 

Minnesota. — Carpenter  v.  Leon- 
ard, 5  Minn.  155. 

Mississippi.  —  Buchanan  v. 
Smith,  43  Miss.  90. 

Mis'souri. — Seidel  v.  Bloeser,  77 
Mo.  App.  172. 

JTebraska. — Pickens  v.  Platts- 
mouth  Land  &  Inv.  Co.,  31  Neb. 
585,  48  N.  W.  473. 


>'ew  York. — Ombony  v.  Jones, 
19  X.  Y.  234.  "UTiere  one  in  pos- 
session rightfully  of  land,  to 
which  he  has  no  title,  erects  a 
building  thereon,  it  will  be  sub- 
ject to  a  mechanic's  lien  for  ma- 
terial used  in  constructing  it. 
Smith  V.  St.  Paul  Fire,  &c.,  Ins. 
Co.,  106  Iowa  225,  76  N.  W.  676. 

Under  contract  of  sale. — Defend- 
ant sold  a  lot  upon  time  payments, 
giving  a  bond  for  a  deed,  which 
provided  for  a  forfeiture  on  de- 
fault in  any  of  the  payments,  at 
the  obligor's  election,  and  further, 
that  "under  this  agreement  the 
interest  of  the  obligee  in  said 
premises  shall  be  only  a  lease- 
hold interest,  until  deed  is  made 
thereunder,  and  shall  not  be  sub- 
ject to  any  mechanic's  lien,  or  oth- 
er lien  by  reason  of  anj^  act  of 
said  obligee."  The  law  provided 
for  mechanic's  liens  on  improve- 
ments made  by  a  lessee,  and  de- 
clares that  such  lien  shall  not 
be  impaired  by  a  forfeiture  of  the 
lease  for  nonpayment  of  rent,  or 
"non-compliance  with  any  of  the 
other  stipulations  therein."  The 
purchaser  erected  a  dwelling  built 
on   blocks   on   the    premises,   and 


365 


FIXTURES  AND  APPURTENANCES. 


[§  138 


land.5  This  is  true,  so  long  as  the  buildings  are  each  con- 
sidered separate  by  themselves.*^  If  several  buildings  are  such 
that  separate  lien  statements  may  be  filed,  then  each  will  be 
subject  to  its  own  work  or  burden.'^  And  when  property 
which  is  considered  as  personal  property  becomes  so  attached 
to  real  estate  as  to  become  a  fixture  of  the  same,  then  it  is  a 
part  of  the  real  estate  and  is  covered  by  liens  upon  the  building 
generally.^  In  some  cases  the  same  rule  is  applied  in  determin- 
ing when  they  are  subject  to  the  lien,  as  in  case  of  sale  on 
execution.il     Motive  power  in  some  states  is  considered  part 


the  lien  was  filed  by  the  material 
man,  after  which  a  forfeiture  was 
declared,  and  the  seller  took  pos- 
session and  sold  to  another.  The 
lien  was  good,  since  the  prohibi- 
tion against  a  Hen  was  only  as  to 
the  purchaser's  interest  in  the 
land,  and  not  as  to  the  improve- 
ment thereon.  Oliver  v.  Davis,  81 
Iowa  287,  46  N.  W.  1000. 

5  Gary  Hardware  Co.  v.  McCar- 
ty,  10  Colo.  App.  200,  50  Pac.  741; 
Equitable  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Slye, 
45  Iowa,  615.  Where  a  portion  of 
the  premises  has  been  absorbed 
by  a  prior  lien  thereon,  a  mater- 
ial man  may  have  a  lien  for  his 
entire  debt  on  the  remainder  of 
the  premises.  Badger  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Holmes,  55  Neb.  473,  76  N.  W. 
174.  See  priority  of  lien.  §§  149- 
164. 

6  Title  Guarantee,  &c.,  Co.  v. 
Wrenn,  35  Ore.  62,  56  Pac.  271,  76 
Am.  St.  454;  Salt  Lake  Litho.  Co. 
v.  Ibex  Mine,  &c.,  Co.,  15  Utah 
440,  49  Pac.  768,  62  Am.  St.  944. 

7  Whitenack  v.  Noe,  3  Stockt. 
(N.  J.   Eq.)    413. 

Separate  Building^s  oh  Adjoin- 
ing lots. — A  contract  for  painting 
seven   buildings   showed  that  the 


work  on  eacL:  building  ranged 
from  $544.13  to  $322.76.  Four  of 
the  lots  fronted  east,  on  which 
were  four  buildings,  joined  by 
partition  walls,  but  not  under  the 
same  roof.  Imrnediately  west  of 
such  lots  was  a  private  alley  and 
west  of  it  were  the  other  three 
lots  fronting  north,  with  three 
buildings  thereon,  joined  by  parti- 
tion walls,  but  not  under  the 
same  roof;  each  of  the  houses  and 
lots  must  be  treated  as  a  sepa- 
rate piece  of  property,  and  the 
contractors  were  not  entitled  Lo 
a  single  lien  against  all.  Buckely 
V.  Commei-cial  Nat.  Bank,  171  111. 
284,   49   N.   E.   617. 

8  See  §§  10,  11.  Rogers  v.  G.  G. 
C.  Min.  Co.,  75  Mo.  App.  114.  A 
mechanic's  lien,  created  by  the 
statute,  is  not  upon  the  specific 
thing  furnished,  nor  upon  the  in- 
terest in  the  land  alone  of  the 
party  for  whom  furnished,  but 
against  the  land  to  be  satisfied  in 
any  way  consistent  with  the  stat- 
ute and  the  principles  of  equity. 
Steigleman  v.  McBride,  17  111.  300. 

iiMcGreary  v.  Osborne,  9  Gal. 
119. 


139] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


366 


of  the  real  estate,  while  the  machines  driven  thereby  are  fix- 
tures.^- Whether  it  is  a  fixture  or  not  is  a  question  of  law 
and  fact  to  be  determined  on  the  trial  of  the  case.^^  As  a 
general  rule,  it  may  be  said  that  an  appurtenance  to  a  build- 
ing is  not  by  itself  to  be  subjected  to  a  mechanics'  lien.^* 

§  139.  Estate  or  interest  in  land,  covered  by  lien. — What- 
ever estate  or  interest  the  person  making  the  contract,^  has  in 
the  land  upon  which  the  building  is  to  be  erected  or  the  im- 


12  Case  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Garven,  4.5 
Ohio  St.  289,  13  N.  E.  492;  Gashe 
V.  Ohio  Lumber  Co.,  5  Ohio  S.  & 
C.  P.  Dec.  130,  31  Wkly.  L.  Bull. 
(Ohio)   189. 

13  Turner  v.  Wentworth,  119 
Mass.  459;  White's  Appeal,  10  Pa. 
St.  252.  A  copper  kettle  in  a 
brew  house.  Gray  v.  Holdship, 
17  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  413,  17  Am. 
Dec.  680n.  Cars  used  in  connec- 
tion with  a  drier  in  a  brickyard 
upon  which  bricks  are  loaded  and 
kept  until  drying  is  complete. 
Curran  v.  Smith,  37  111.  App.  69. 
A  pump  placed  in  a  basement  of 
a  building  and  planted  down  in 
the  ground  and  connected  to  pipes 
in  a  waterworks.  Goss  v.  Hel- 
bing,  77  Cal.  190,  19  Pac.  277.  Ma- 
chinery which  is  capable  of  being 
severed.  Slocum  v.  Caldwell, 
(Ky.)  13  S.  W.  1069,  12  Ky.  L. 
514.  Mining  machinery  placed  in 
the  building  by  a  miner.  Spring- 
field Foundry  &  Mach.  Co.  v.  Cole, 
130  Mo.  1,  31  S.  W.  922.  Unless 
so  attached  that  it  cannot  be  re- 
moved without  great  injury  to 
building.  Buchanan  v.  Cole,  57 
IMo.  App.  11.  A  boiler,  pump,  en- 
gine, and  machinery,  simply 
placed  at  a  mining  shaft.     Meis- 


trell  v.  Reach,  56  Mo.  App.  243. 
Store  counters.  Baum  v.  Covert, 
62  Miss.  113.  Building  erected  by 
tenant  with  power  of  removal. 
Collins  V.  Mott,  45  Mo.  100.  Or 
erected  by  tenant  for  purpose  of 
trade.  Church  v.  Griffith,  9  Pa. 
St.  117,  49  Am.  Dec.  548.  Hoist- 
ing engine  in  coal  mine.  Ottum- 
wa  Iron  "Works  v.  Muir,  126  Mo. 
App.  582,  105  S.  W.  29. 

1-1  See  §12;  Carpenter  v.  Leon- 
ard, 5  Minn.  155. 

iSee    §§    26-31. 

Illiuois.  —  Chicago  Smokeless 
Fuel  Gas  Co.  v.  Lyman,  62  111. 
App.    538. 

Mississippi. — English  v.  Foote, 
8  S.  &  M.    (Miss.)   444. 

Ohio.— Lord  v.  Chaffee,  2  Clev. 
L.  297,  4  Ohio  Dec.    (Re.)   514. 

Peuiisylvania. — Weaver  v.  Shee- 
ler,  lis  Pa.  St.  634,  12  Atl.  558. 

Xew  York. — Pennsylvania  Steel 
Co.  V.  Title  Guarantee  &  Trust 
Co.,  50  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  51,  100  N.  Y. 
Supp.  299.  A  mechanic's  lien  can- 
not ordinarily  be  imposed  on  a 
building  unless  in  connection  with 
some  estate  or  interest  in  the 
land  on  which  it  is  erected.  Wil- 
liamson V.  Shank,  41  Ind.  App. 
513,  83  N.  E.  641. 


367 


ESTATE  COVERED  BY  LIEN. 


[§  139 


provements  made  at  the  time  the  materials  are  furnished,^  will 
be  subject  to  the  lien,^  and  what  may  be  acquired  during  the 
performance  of  the  work.^  Unless  the  statute  specifically  so 
provides,  the  interest  of  the  heir  is  not  liable  for  a  lien  ac- 
quired under  contract  of  his  ancestor.^  However,  if  the  lien 
becomes  fastened  before  the  ancestor  died,  the  heir  will  re- 
ceive the  land  with  the  burden  of  the  lien.*'  Where  a  sub- 
scription contract  for  the  erection  of  a  building  binds  the  sub- 
scribers to  pay  only  their  respective  amounts,  it  was  held  that 
a  lien  would  attach  to  the  interest  of  each  for  the  sum  due 
from  him.'^  The  mechanic  is  bound  to  ascertain  the  nature  of 
the  title  held  by  the  person  with  whom  he  contracts.^  When 
property  that  is  subject  to  a  lien  is  transformed  into  money,  a 
court  of  equity  will  consider  the  money  as  it  would  consider 
the  property  before  sale  so  far  as  the  rights  of  lien  holders 
would  attach  thereto,  and  in  certain  cases  will  follow  it  in  the 


2  See  §  10.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens  §  107.  Sis- 
son  V.  Holcomb,  58  Mich.  634,  26 
N.  W..  155;  Evans  v.  Montgomery, 
4  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  218;  Norhwest 
Bridge  Co.  v.  Tacoma  Shipbuild- 
ing Co.,  36  Wash.  333,  78  Pac. 
996. 

3  See  §  10.  Bray  v.  Smith,  87 
Iowa  339,  54  N.  W.  222;  Shaw  v. 
Young,  87  Me.  271,  32  Atl.  897; 
Savoy  V.  Jones,  2  Rawle  (Pa.) 
343;  Kenny  v.  Gage,  33  Vt.  302. 
A  claim  can  never  be  enforced 
against  a  person's  interest,  unless 
the  lien  makes  an  assertion 
against  such  person's  interest. 

4Trueblood  v.  Shellhouse,  19 
Ind.  App.  91,  49  N.  E.  47. 

5Tubridy  v.  Wright,  7  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  403,  27  N.  Y.  Supp,  978.  Lien 
held  on  trust  property  where  deed 
recited,  improvements  might  be 
made.     Taylor  v.  Gilsdorff,  74  111. 


354.  Where  a  mechanic's  lien  is 
filed  on  real  estate  and  improve- 
ments a  part  of  which  is  owned 
by  minors,  and  the  adult  defend- 
ants have  the  suit  dismissed  as 
to  the  minors,  they  are  liable  to 
pay  the  entire  debt.  Armijo  v. 
Mountain  Electric  Co.,  11  N.  Mex. 
235,   67  Pac.   726. 

SHoag  V.  Hay,  103  Iowa  291,  72 
N.  W.   525. 

"Hines  v.  Chicago  Bldg.  &  Mfg. 
Co.,  115  Ala.  637,  22  So.  160. 

SHankinson  v.  Vantine,  152  N. 
Y.  20,  46  N.  E.  292.  Where  a 
guardian  with  her  ward's  money, 
purchases  real  estate,  which  by 
a  deed  duly  recorded  is  conveyed 
to  her  in  trust  for  her  wards,  with 
power  to  sell,  convey,  and  incum- 
ber in  her  direction,  a  material 
man  furnishing  material  in  the 
erection  of  improvements  on  the 
real    estate    is     chargeable     with 


§140] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


368 


hands  of  the  vendor.''  So  rents  and  profits  in  the  hands  of  a 
receiver  have  been  applied  to  the  claim  of  mechanics.^*'  But 
the  lien  does  not  attach  to  a  policy  of  insurance  on  the  prop- 
erty/^ especially  if  the  policy  be  assigned  before  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  equity  court  attaches.^-  Sometimes  it  is  held  that 
the  right  to  the  lien  becomes  fixed  at  the  time  the  contract  is 
made,  but  this  is  not  the  general  rule.  In  no  case  does  the 
lien,  where  the  parties  are  free  from  fraud,  affect  a  pre-existing 
right  of  title. ^^  Thus  if  a  party  consents  to  another  erecting 
a  building  on  his  land,  he  will  be  estopped  from  denying  a  lien 
for  the  materials  furnished  to  the  building.^"* 

§  140.  Interest  or  estate  of  contracting  owner,  covered  by 
lien. — As  a  general  rule,  it  may  be  said  that  the  person  making 
the  contract  must  have  some  recognized  ownership,^  or  there 
will  be  no  lien,  but  if  there  is  such  an  ownership,  be  it  ever 
so  small,  that  will  be  covered  by  the  lien.^  A  co-tenant,  un- 
less by  the  other  co-tenant's  consent,  can  bind  his  interests 


notice  of  the  trust;  and  his  right 
to  a  mechanic's  lien  is  inferior 
to  the  right  of  the  wards  to  fol- 
low their  money  thus  wrongfully 
invested.  Alfred  Richards  Brick 
Co.  V.  Atkinson,  16  App.  Cas.  (D. 
C.)  462. 

9Gaty  V.  Casey,  15  111.  189;  Xess 
V.  Davidson,  49  Minn.  469,  .52  N. 
W.  46;  Schenley's  Appeal.  70  Pa. 
St.  98. 

lOHoover  v.  Wheeler,  23  Miss. 
314. 

iiCameron  v.  Fay,  5.5  Tex.  58. 

i2Galyon  v.  Ketchen.  85  Teun. 
55,   1   S.   W.   508. 

isscales  v.  Griffin,  2  Doug. 
(Mich.)    54.      See   §144. 

i^Hooker  v.  McGlone,  42  Conu. 
95. 

iSee  §§  25-27.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens  §  188. 


2District  of  Columbia.  —  Alfred 
Richards  Brick  Co.  v.  Atkinson, 
16   App.  Cas.    (D.   C.)    462. 

Illinois. — Donaldson  v.  Holmes, 
23  111.  85  [83];  Steigleman  v.  Mc- 
Bride,  17  111.  300;  Randolph  v. 
Chisholm,  29  111.  App.  172. 

Eaiisas. — Seitz  v.  Union  Pac.  R. 
Co..   16  Kan.  133. 

Kentucky. — Trustees  of  Cald- 
well Institute  v.  Young,  63  Ky. 
582. 

Jfebraska. — Hoagland  v.  Lowe, 
39  Neb.  397.  58  N.  W.  197;  Water- 
man V.  Stout,  38  Neb.  396,  56  N. 
W.  987,  Henry,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Fisher- 
dick,   37   Neb.    207,   55   N.  W.   643. 

Pennsylvania. — Schenley's  Ap- 
peal. 70  Pa.  St.  98. 

Texas Strang  v.  Pray,  89  Tex. 

525,  35  S.  W.  1054. 


369 


OWNER  OF  ESTATE. 


:§i4o 


only  for  improvements  made  under  contract  with  him.^  As 
illustrating  the  interest  that  may  be  affected  by  the  lien  it  is 
held  that  if  a  husband  makes  a  contract  for  a  building:  on  his 
wife's  land,  it  not  being  shown  that  he  had  agency  or  author- 
ity from  her  so  to  do,  his  curtesy  only  will  be  cov- 
ered by  the  lien.-*  This  has  been  held  so,  even  where  his  right 
did  not  attach  until  after  the  work  was  done.^  Whatever  the 
less  estate  may  be,  such  estate  will  be  bound.<^  A  person  in 
possession  of  public  land  with  right  to  make  improvements 
thereon,  has  an  interest  that  may  be  subjected  to  the  lienJ  As 
a  rule  we  speak  of  the  legal  title  held  by  the  owner  as  being 
subject  to  the  lien,  but  it  will  also  attach  to  an  equitable  title, 
and  it  will  follow  in  the  hands  of  purchasers  and  assignees.'^ 
But  it  has  been  held  that  if  the  purchaser  of  a  legal  title  ac- 


SHillburn  v.  O'Barr,  19  Ga.  591; 
Van  Riper  v.  Norton,  61  Mo.  App. 
440;  Keller  v.  Denmead,  68  Pa.  St. 
449. 

Wisconsin. — Dean  v.  Pyncheon, 
3  Chand.  (Wis.)  9,  3  Finn.  (Wis.) 
17.  A  mechanic's  lien  attaches  to 
the  interests  of  those  who  make 
the  contract  and  to  the  interests 
of  all  those  who  authorized  or 
knowingly  permitted  such  con- 
tract to  be  made.  Hughes  v.  Mc- 
Casland,  122   111.  App.   365. 

4  Plannery  v.  Rohrmayer,  46 
Conn.  558,  33  Am.  Rep.  36.  If 
owned  jointly  husband   can  bind. 

■  Bauer  v.  Long,  147  Mich.  351, 
110  N.  W.  1059,  118  Am.  St.  552, 
13   Det.   Leg.   N.   1018. 

5  Kirby  v.  Tead,  13  Mete. 
(Mass.)     149. 

6  McCarty  v.  Carter,  49  111.  53, 
95  Am.  Dec.  572;  Garrett  v.  Stev- 
enson, 8  111.  261;  Taggart  v.  Kem, 
22  Ind.  App.  271,  53  N.  B.  651; 
Fisher  v.  Anslyn,  30  Mo.  App.  316. 
A  widow  who  occupies  real  estate 

24 


converted  by  the  will,  until  its 
actual  sale,  under  a  privilege 
given  by  the  will,  cannot  bind  it 
by  contract  for  repairs  beyond 
her  interest  in  the  land,  which 
amounts  at  most  to  a  life  ten- 
ancy. In  re  Ottinger's  Estate, 
17  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  244,  4  Pa.  Dlst. 
711. 

■<■  Turney  v.  Saunders,  5  111.  527. 

'a  Smith  V.  St.  Paul  Fire  &  Ma- 
rine Ins.  Co.,  106  Iowa  225,  76  N. 
W.  676;  Clark  v.  Parker,  58  Iowa 
509,  12  N.  W.  553;  Morgan  v. 
Bloecker,  6  Pa.  Dist.  659,  41  W. 
N.  C.  (Pa.)  127.  See  §§  10,  24.  A 
husband  purchased  land  on  which 
he  paid  a  portion  of  the  price  and 
agreed  to  give  his  note  and  mort- 
gage for  the  balance,  and  was 
thereon  let  into  possession  with- 
out a  deed.  Subsequently  he  con- 
tracted for  the  erection  of  a 
house  on  the  land,  and  work  was 
commenced  thereon.  Held  that;, 
by  having  the  deed  executed  to 
the    wife,   giving   her    legal    title, 


§  140] 


OPERATION   AND   EFFECT   OF   PERFECTED   LIEN. 


370 


quires  the  same  bona  fide  it  will  not  be  subject  to  the  lien.^ 
If  a  vendee  is  in  possession  and  afterwards  acquires  title  the 
lien  will  attach.^  But  in  no  case  can  the  lien  cover  more  than 
the  contracting  owner  had.^*^  Where  the  equitable  title 
afterwards  merges  into  the  legal,  the  lien  will  attach  to  the 
legal  title. 11  And  even  a  vendee's  interest  after  forfeiture  has 
been  held  sufficient  to  be  subject  to  the  lien.i^  Where  labor 
is  done  for  one  who  is  the  owner  of  the  equitable  title  and  on 
foreclosure  the  owners  of  the  legal  and  equitable  title  are  made 
parties,  and  the  court  orders  both  the  legal  and  equitable  title 
sold,  the  purchasers  get  a  good  title. ^^  A  purchaser  under  a 
deed  held  in  escrow,  has  an  interest  which  may  be  subjected  to 
the  lien. 14    Where  a  trustee  under  a  will  makes  improvements, 


he  could  not  avoid  a  lien  ac- 
quired by  the  building  contrac- 
tors on  the  title  and  interest  held 
by  the  husband  at  the  time  of  the 
contract.  Smith  v.  Woodruff,  1 
Handy  (Ohio)  276.  One  holding 
a  contract  for  a  warranty  deed 
to  real  estate  may  subject  his  in- 
terest in  said  land  to  a  mechan- 
ic's lien  and,  upon  acquiring  legal 
title  during  the  progress  of  the 
work,  the  lien  will  attach  to  the 
entire  property.  Interstate  Bldg. 
&  Loan  Assn.  v.  Ayers,  71  111. 
App.   529. 

8  Mechanics'  liens  entered 
against  an  equitable  estate  have 
their  value  upon  that  estate,  and 
they  survive  or  perish  with  it. 
Campbell's  Appeal,  36  Pa.  St.  247, 
78  Am.  Dec.  375n.  It  cannot  pre- 
vail against  a  legal  estate.  Gault 
V.  Deming,  3  Phila.    (Pa.)   337. 

9  National  Bank  v.  Williams, 
38  Fla.  305,  20  So.  931. 

10  Seitz  V.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co., 
16  Kan.  133;  Harsh  v.  Morgan,  1 
Kan.    293;    Wagar   v.    Briscoe,    38 


Mich.  587.  Under  verbal  contract 
to  convey.  Land  v.  Muirhead,  31 
Miss.  89.  Invalid  contract  to 
convey.  Williams  v.  Lane,  87 
Wis.    152,    58    N.    W.    77. 

11  Interstate  Bldg.  &  Loan 
Assn.  V.  Ayers,  71  111.  App.  530; 
Brown  v.  Jones,  52  Minn.  484,  55 
N.  W.  54;  Allen  v.  Oxnard,  152 
Pa.  St.  621,  25  Atl.  568;  Lyon  v. 
McGuffey,  4  Pa.  St.  126,  45  Am. 
Dec.  675n.  Second  purchase. 
Cochran  v.  Wimberly,  44  Miss. 
503. 

12  Davis  V.  Elliott,  7  Ind.  App. 
246,  34  N.  E.  591;  Brown  v.  Jones, 
52  Minn.  484,  55  N.  W.  54;  Ker- 
rick  V.  Ruggles,  78  Wis.  274,  47  N. 
W.  437. 

13  Lews  V.  Rose,  82  111.  574. 

1^  Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Dil- 
lon, 13  Colo.  App.  196,  56  Pa.  989. 
Cases  holding  that  there  is  an 
equitable  title.  Hamilton  v. 
Whitson,  5  Kan.  App.  347,  48  Pac. 
462;  Carey-Lombard  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Bierbauer,  76  Minn.  434,  79  N. 
W.  541;   Berry  v.  McAdams,  Tex. 


371 


LEASEHOLDS  COVERED  BY  LIEN. 


141 


he  may  be  made  to  pay  a  lien  in  installments  out  of  rent.^^ 

§  141.  Leaseholds  covered  by  lien. — Under  most  if  not  all 
statutes,  leasehold  interests  are  subject  to  a  lien,  and  if  the 
statement  is  properly  filed,  is  covered  by  it.^  However,  the 
lien  will  only  attach  to  the  interest  of  the  lessee,  unless  the 
statute  makes  the  lessee  the  agent  of  the  lessor;  it  attaches 
subject  to  all  the  conditions  of  the  lease.^  The  landlord's  inter- 
est is  liable  under  a  provision  in  the  lease  that  all  improve- 
ments shall  become  the  property  of  the  landlord  in 
case  of  forfeiture.  If  the  leasehold  interest  should  be 
merged    into    the     fee,    as     where    the     owner    of    the     fee 


Civ.  App.,  50  S.  W.  952;  Greene 
V.  McDonald,  70  Vt.  372,  40  Atl. 
1035. 

15  Hall  V.  Bullock  (Ky.),  97  S. 
W.  351,  29  Ky.  L.  1254. 

1  See  Lessee's  ownership,  §  26. 
See  Liability  to  lien,  §  10.  Ashe- 
ville  Woodworking  Co.  v.  South- 
wick,  119  N.  Car.  611,  26  S.  E. 
253;  Smith  Woolen  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Browne,  206  Pa.  543,  50  Atl.  43; 
Sherman  v.  Thompson,  7  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  555,  43  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.) 
150;  Wiles  v.  People's  Gas  Co.,  7 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  562.  The  word 
"owner"  in  the  first  section  of  the 
act  "to  create  a  lien  in  favor  of 
mechanics  and  others  in  certain 
cases"  is  not  limited  to  an  owner 
in  fee,  but  includes  also  an  owner 
of  a  leasehold  estate.  If  the  own- 
ership is  in  fee,  the  lien  is  on 
the  fee;  if  it  is  of  a  less  estate, 
the  lien  is  on  such  smaller  es- 
tate. Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2 
Ohio  St.  114.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  191.  See 
ante,   §  44,   Ohio   Statute. 


2  California. — Johnson  v.  Dew- 
ey, 36  Cal.  623;  Gaskill  v.  Train- 
er, 3  Cal.  334. 

Illinois.— Reed  v.  Boyd,  84  111. 
66. 

loiva. — Nordyke  &  Marmon  Co. 
V.  Hawkeye  Woolen  Mills  Co.,  53 
Iowa  521,  5  N.  W.  693. 

Koiituckj'. — Laviolette  v.  Red- 
ding, 4  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  81;  see 
§143. 

Missouri. — Curtin-Clark  Hard- 
ware Co.  V.  Churchill,  126  Mo. 
App.  462,  104  S.  W.  476. 

Destroyed  by  fire. — A  mechan- 
ic's lien  attaches  to  constructions 
and  works  erected  on  the  leased 
premises,  under  a  contract  with  a 
lessee,  in  the  place  of  those  de- 
stroyed by  fire,  during  the  lease, 
without  his  fault  or  negligence. 
Schwartz  v.  Salter,  40  La.  Ann. 
264,   4   So.  77. 

No  Interest  After  Lease  Ex- 
pires.— Where  a  covenant  in  a 
lease  is  merely  that  the  appraised 
value  of  the  buildings  erected  by 
the  tenant  shall  be  paid  for  by  the 


141] 


OPERATION   AND  EFFECT   OF   PERFECTED   LIEN. 


372 


purchases  the  interest  of  the  lessee,  the  entire  estate 
then  becomes  liable  for  the  lien.^  However,  this  rule  is  only 
applied  in  cases  where  the  purchase  is  made  before  the  expira- 
tion or  forfeiture  of  the  lease. ^  And  it  has  been  held  that  if 
the  owner  of  the  fee  changed  it  into  a  leasehold  after  the  ma- 
terials are  furnished,  the  lien  might  be  enforcea  either  against 
the  fee  or  the  leasehold.^  But  as  a  general  rule,  only  the  int- 
erest of  the  leasehold  owner  is  covered  by  a  lien  existing  by 
virtue  of  a  contract  with  him.^  Where  the  leasehold  is  liable 
on  the  lien,  the  landlord  on  sale  of  it  is  bound  to  accept  the 
purchasers  of  the  leasehold  interest  as  tenants,'  or  where  the 


lessor,  no  mention  being  made  of 
the  lessor's  assigns,  the  lessee, 
after  the  expiration  of  his  term, 
has  no  interest  in  the  land  itself 
to  which,  as  against  such  assigns, 
a  mechanic's  lien  can  attach. 
Watson  V.  Gardner,  119  111.  312, 
10  N.  E.  192. 

3  Evans  v.  Young,  10  Colo.  316, 
15  Pac.  424,  3  Am.  St.  583;  Dob- 
schuetz  V.  Holliday,  82  111.  371; 
Curtin-Clark  Hardware  Co.  v. 
Churchill,  126  Mo.  App.  462,  104 
S.  W.  476. 

4Masow  V.  Fife,  10  Wash.  52S, 
39  Pac.  140. 

5  Goldheim  v.  Clark,  68  Md.  498, 
13  Atl.  363. 

6  Illinois. — Williams  v.  Vander- 
bilt,  145  111.  238,  34  N.  E.  476,  36 
Am.  St.  486,  21  L.  R.  A.  489. 

ludiana. — McCarty  v.  Burnet, 
84  Ind.  23. 

Nebraska. — Moore  v.  Vaughn, 
42  Neb.  696.  60  N.  W.  914. 

Obio. — Dutro  v.  Wilson,  4  Ohio 
St.  101. 

Rhode  Island. — Poole  v.  Fellows, 
25  R.  I.  64,  54  Atl.  772. 


^VasLington. — Masow  v.  Fife,  10 
Wash.  528,  39  Pac.  140;  Miles  Co. 
V.  Gordon,  8  Wash.  442,  36  Pac. 
265. 

Ground  Rent. — A  material  man, 
selling  materials  to  a  lessee  to 
erect  buildings  on  the  leased  prop- 
erty with  knowledge  that  a 
ground  rent  is  reserved  to  the 
owner,  cannot  subject  the  ground 
rent  to  the  payment  of  his  claim. 
Baltimore  High  Grade  Brick  Co. 
V.  Amos,  95  Md.  571,  52  Atl.  582, 
53  Atl.  148. 

Tenant  at  will,  person  put  in 
possession  to  build  house  may 
create  lien  on  house.  Williamson 
V.  Shank,  41  Ind.  App.  513.  83  N. 
E.  641. 

~  Koenig  v.  Mueller,  39  Mo.  165. 
A  building  erected  by  a  tenant 
cannot  be  subjected  to  a  mechan- 
ic's lien  for  materials  sold  to  him 
as  against  a  subsequent  purchas- 
er of  the  land  for  valuable  con- 
sideration without  notice  of  the 
lien  or  of  the  tenant's  claim  to 
the  building.  Denison  Lumber 
Co.  v.  INIilburn,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.) 
107  S.  W.  1161. 


2)7 Z  LEASEHOLDS COMMUNITY  PROPERTY.  [§142 

lien  is  upon  the  building,  he  must  suffer  its  removal,^  or  if  the 
tenant  has  a  right  to  purchase,  this  right  will  go  to  the  pur- 
chaser under  foreclosure.^  Not  merely  does  the  improvement 
or  building  on  which  the  labor  is  done  become  liable,  but  the 
entire  interest  of  the  leaseholder  is  covered  by  the  lien.i'^ 
Under  statutes  making  the  landlord's  interest  liable,  payment 
by  him  to  the  tenant  for  the  costs  of  the  improvement  will  not 
defeat  the  lien,^^  nor  can  a  tenant  defeat  the  lien  by  a  voluntary 
surrender  after  the  materials  are  furnished,  even  though  the 
lease  so  provides.^^  Where  the  tenancy  has  expired  and  there 
is  no  provision  for  removal  the  lien  right  is  lost.^^  But  the 
fact  that  improvements  cannot  be  removed  will  not  defeat 
the  right  to  a  lien ;  the  interest  of  the  lessee  whatever  that 
may  be  can  be  sold.^^  Where  the  rights  of  a  sublessee  are 
recognized,  he  has  an  interest  that  may  be  subjected  to  the 
lien.13 

§  142.    Community  property  covered  by  lien — Homestead. — 

In  community  property,  where  one  in  interest  contracts, 
the  entire  property  will  be  covered  by  the  lien ;  and  as  a  gen- 
eral rule  homestead  property  is  subject  to  the  mechanic's  lien,^ 

s  Montana  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fixture  &  Plumbing  Co.,  131  Ala. 

Obelisk  Min.,  &c.,  Co.  15  Mont.  20,  256,  31  So.  26. 

37  Pac.  897.  i5  Cary   Hardware      Co.    v.   Mc- 

9  Currier  v.  Cummings,  40  N.  J.  Carty,  10  Colo.  App.  200,  50  Pac. 
Eq.  145,  3  Atl.  174.  744. 

10  Montana  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.  i  House  v.  Schulze,  21  Tex.  Civ. 
V.  Obelisk  Min.,  &c.,  Co.,  15  Mont.  App.  243,  52  S.  W.  654.  See  §  10. 
20,  37  Pac.  897.  Under  Rev.  St.,  Wis.,  §  3314,  pro- 

11  Scroggin  v.  National  Lumber  viding  for  a  mechanic's  lien  upon 
Co.,  41  Neb.  195,  59  N.  W.  548.  land    upon    which    buildings    are 

12  McAnally  v.  Glidden,  30  Ind.  erected  not  to  exceed  40  acres,  a 
App.  22,  65  N.  E.  291;  Hagan  v.  defendant  cannot  insist  upon  par- 
Gaskill,  42  N.  J.  Eq.  215,  6  Atl.  ticular  portions,  different  from 
879.  the  government  subdivision  upon 

i'"^  Evans    v.    Judson,    120      Cal.  which  the  buildings  are  situated, 

282,   52  Pac.  585.  being  subjected  to  such  liens,  on 

14  Alabama  State  Fair  &  Agri-  the    ground    that   the      remaining 

cultural    Assn.    v.    Alabama    Gas  portions     constitute     his     home- 


142] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


374 


although  there  are  some  statutes  and  decisions  exempting 
homesteads.^  The  promoters  of  a  corporation  cannot  charge 
property  to  be  afterwards  acquired  by  a  corporation  with  a 
mechanic's  lien."  However  if  the  promoters  were  under  con- 
tract to  take  a  certain  interest  in  the  new  concern  after  its  incor- 
poration, a  lien  may  be  enforced  against  their  interests  in 
the  new  corporation/  and  if  the  incorporators  have  knowledge 
that  the  building  was  erected  in  pursuance  of  such  contract 
the  corporation  will  be  liable.^  The  owner  may  be  estopped 
by  his  conduct  from  asserting  that  he  does  not  own  property, 
or  that  it  is  not  subject  to  a  lien  and  equity  will  decline  to 
hear  him  to  the  contrary.  If  he  represents  that  he  has  an  inter- 
est which  the  law  recognizes  as  subject  to  a  lien  and  after- 
wards in  fact  acquires  such  an  interest  it  will  be  subject  to 
a  lien.^     And  this  could  happen  although  he  were  not  a  party 


stead.     Darling  v.  Neumeister,  99 
Wis.   426,   75   N.   W.   175. 

2  Morgan  v.  Benthein,  10  S.  D. 
650,  75  N.  W.  204;  Fallihee  v. 
Wittmayer,  9  S.  D.  479,  70  N.  W. 
642.  Where  a  lien  does  not  at- 
tach to  homestead  rights  of  wife 
in  land  owned  jointly  by  her  and 
her  husband,  because  the  contract 
for  improvements  was  signed  by 
the  husband  only,  though  with 
her  knowledge  and  consent,  the 
improvements,  consisting  of  an 
original  building,  are  subject  to 
lien,  and  may  be  removed,  under 
Lien  Law  1891,  §  9,  subd.  4,  pro- 
viding that,  where  materials  and 
labor  are  furnished  in  the  con- 
struction of  an  original  building 
since  the  attaching  of  any  prior 
title  to  the  land,  the  court  may 
direct  the  building  to  be  separate- 
ly sold,  and  the  purchaser  may 
remove,  it,  or  the  court  may  take 


an  account  and  ascertain  the  sep- 
arate values  of  the  land  and  build- 
ing, and  distribute  the  proceeds 
so  as  to  secure  to  the  prior  title 
priority  on  the  land,  and  to  the 
mechanic's  lien  priority  on  the 
building.  Jossman  v.  Rice,  121 
Mich.  270,  80  N.  W.  25. 

3  Davis  V.  Maysville,  63  Mo. 
App.  477;  Davis  v.  Owings,  2  Mo. 
App.  R.  847;  Davis  v.  Ravenna 
Creamery  Co.,  48  Neb.  471,  67  N. 
W.  436. 

■i  This  question  was  suggested 
but  not  passed  upon.  Davis 
V.  Ravenna  Creamery  Co.,  48 
Neb.  471,  67  N.  W.  436.  Davis 
Rankin  Bldg.,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Vice,  16 
Ind.  App.  117,  43  N.  E.  889. 

5  Waddy  Blue  Grass  Creamery 
Co.  V.  Davis-Rankin  Bldg.,  &c., 
Co.,  103  Ky.  579,  45  S.  W.  895. 

6  Floete  V.  Brown,  104  Iowa  154, 
73  N.  W.  483. 


375 


IMPROVEMENTS LANDLORD VENDOR. 


[§143 


to  the  contract."  Likewise  if  the  owner  ratifies  a  contract 
which  was  made  before  he  was  in  fact  such  owner,  he  cannot 
be  heard  afterwards  to  assert  the  contrary.^  And  so,  if  the  true 
owner  stands  by  while  another  is  making  a  contract  and  en- 
courages the  builder  to  perform  the  same,  the  court  will  decline 
to  hear  his  plea  of  non-Hability.^  But  to  hold  a  landlord's 
interest  liable,  more  than  a  mere  acquiescence  is  required. ^"^ 

§  143.  Lien  on  interest  of  landlord  or  vendor  for  improve- 
ments made  by  tenant  or  purchaser. — Unless  the  statute  so 
authorizes,  the  reversionary  interest  of  the  landlord  is  not 
liable  for  improvements  made  by  a  tenant.^  And  in  the  ab- 
sence of  such  statutes,  the  building  cannot  be  torn  down  and 
moved  off  in  pieces,  where  the  lien  attaches  to  the  land  and 


"  Lindsley  v.  Parks,  17  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  527,  43  S.  W.  277. 

8  Commonwealth  Title  Insur- 
ance &  Trust  Co.  V.  Ellis,  22  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  86,  8  Pa.  Dist.  5. 

9  Bastrup  v.  Prendergast,  179 
111.  553,  53  N.  E.  995. 

Suffering  Tender  to  remain  in 
possession. — A  person  who  pur- 
chases land  from  another,  and 
suffers  the  vendor  to  remain  in 
possession  under  a  contract  to 
build  a  house  thereon  and  occupy 
the  same  a  specified  time,  has  no 
equity  against  persons  claiming 
mechanic's  liens  for  materials 
furnished  the  vendor  with  which 
to  build  the  house.  Buckstaff  v. 
Dunbar,  15  Neb.  114,  17  N.  W.  345. 

1"  Santa  Cruz  Rock  Pavement 
Co.  v.  Lyons,  117  Cal.  212,  48  Pac. 
1097;    see    §35. 

1  Arizona. — Gates  v.  Fredericks, 
5  Ariz.  343,  52  Pac.  1118. 

Illinois. — Williams  v.  Vander- 
bilt,  145  111.  238,  34  N.  E.  476;  Jud- 
son  V.  Stephens,  75  111.  255. 


Indiana. — Coburn  v.  Stephens, 
137  Ind.  683,  36  N.  E.  132;  Wilker- 
son  V.  Rust,  57  Ind.  172. 

Maryland. — Beehler  v.  Ijams, 
72  Md.  193,  19  Atl.  646;  Gable  v. 
Preachers'  Fund  Soc,  59  Md.  455; 
Hoffman  v.  McColgan,  81  Md.  390, 
32  Atl.  179. 

Mississippi. — Kirk  v.  Taliaferro, 
16  Miss.   754. 

Montana. — Stenberg  v.  Lienue- 
mann,  20  Mont.  457,  52  Pac.  84. 

Nebraska. — Moore  v.  Vaughn, 
42  Neb.  696,  60  N.  W.  914. 

Ohio. — Filberl  v.  Davis,  4  Ohio 
Dec.  496,  4  W.  L.  Bull.  629,  2  Cleve. 
Law  Rep.  265. 

Oregon. — Patterson  v.  Galla- 
gher, 25  Ore.  227,  35  Pac.  454,  42 
Am.  St.  794. 

Wisconsin.— Allfree  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Henry,  96  Wis.  327,  71  N.  W.  370. 
See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechan- 
ics' Liens,  §192.  See  ante,  §§12, 
26. 


§143] 


OPERATION   AND  EFFECT   OF  PERFECTED   LIEN. 


376 


not  to  the  building  alone.-  If  the  lease  provides  for  the  erec- 
tion of  a  specified  building  by  the  lessee,  then  the  lessee  is 
the  lessor's  agent,  and  the  lessor's  interest  is  liable.^  The 
fact  that  the  lessee  is  to  do  the  work  at  his  own  cost, 
will  not  relieve  the  landlord  under  some  statutes.^^  But  in 
order  to  hold  the  lessor's  interest,  the  improvement  must  be 
one  agreed  upon,'*  or  consented  to."^  That  the  build- 
ing is  to  become  the  lessor's  after  the  leases  have  ex- 
pired will  not  be  sufficient  to  bind  the  lessor's  interest  for  a 
claim  incurred  in  making  the  improvement.^  Unless  the  ven- 
dor has  ceased  to  be  the  owner  of  the  legal  title,'^  or  the  as- 
sertion of  his  claim  for  the  unpaid  purchase  price  will  work 
a  legal  fraud  upon  the  rights  of  innocent  third  persons,  the 
vendor's  claim  is  superior  to  the  claim  of  a  mechanic  for  im- 
provements made   under  contract  with  the  purchaser. ^      An 


2  Gaskill  V.  Davis,  61  Ga.  644. 

3  Where  the  lease  merely  stip- 
ulates that  a  certain  sum  shall 
be  expended,  then  the  lien  will 
not  attach  to  reversionary  inter- 
est. IMorrow  v.  Merritt,  16  Utah 
412,  52  Pac.  667.  Crandall  v. 
Sorg,  198  111.  48,  64  N.  E.  769; 
Hankison  v.  Valentine,  152  N.  Y. 
20,  46  N.  E.  292;  Mosher  v.  Lewis, 
14  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  565,  43  N.  Y. 
Supp.  1052;  Santa  Monica  Lum- 
ber &  Mill  Co.  V.  Hege  (Cal.),  48 
Pac.    69. 

Laying  sidewalk. — A  mechanic's 
lien  may  be  filed,  as  against  the 
owner  of  premises  for  laying  a 
sidewalk  at  the  request  of  lessees 
in  possession  having  permission 
from  the  owner  to  alter  and  re- 
pair the  premises,  particularly 
where  the  lessees  agreed  to  im- 
prove the  premises,  and  the  tak- 
ing up  of  the  old  and  the  laying 
of  the  new  sidewalk  were  neces- 


sary to  effect  the  improvements; 
it  appearing  also  that  an  ordin- 
ance required  owners  or  lessees 
to  maintain  sidewalks  of  a  kind 
different  from  that  taken  up,  for 
laying  of  which  the  mechanic's 
lien  law  (Laws  N.  Y.  1885,  c.  342), 
gives  a  lien  when  done  with  the 
consent  of  the  owner.  Mosher  v. 
Lewis,  14  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  565, 
43   N.  Y.   Supp.   1052. 

3a  Curtin-Clark  Hardware  Co.  v. 
Churchill.  126  Mo.  App.  462,  104 
S.  W.  476. 

■*  Hankinson  v.  Valentine,  152 
N.  Y.  20,  46  N.  E.  292. 

5  Hankinson  v.  Valentine,  152  N. 
Y.  20,  46  N.  E.  292;  Hammond  v. 
Martin,  15  Tex.  App.  347,  40  S.  W. 
347. 

c  Hankinson  v.  Valentine,  152  N. 
Y.  20,  46  N.  E.  292. 

7  Adam  v.   Russell,   85    111.   284. 

8  Arizona. — Bremen  v.  Foreman, 
1  Ariz.  413,  25  Pac.  539. 


Z77 


LANDLORD LESSOR PURCHASER. 


143 


option  to  purchase,  with  possession  in  the  purchaser,  which 
is  not  consummated,  will  not  defeat  the  vendor's  priority 
over  the  mechanic.^  The  only  interest  that  can  be  reached  by 
the  lien  claim  is  the  purchaser's  right. ^*^  If  the  vendor  pur- 
chases the  vendee's  interest  in  the  property  and  as  a  part  con- 
sideration therefor  agrees  to  pay  the  lien,  of  course  the  prop- 
erty is  liable. 11  In  a  case  where  a  purchaser  was  in 
possession  holding  bond  for  a  deed,  and  a  portion  of  the  price 
had  been  paid,  and  the  bond  was  canceled  and  premises  sur- 
rendered, it  was  held  that  the  vendor's  interest  was  liable  for 
materials  furnished  under  a  contract  with  the  vendee. ^^ 


Arkansas. — Thomas  v.  Ellison, 
57  Ark.  481,  22   S.  W.  95. 

Iowa.— Wilkins  v.  Litchfield,  69 
Iowa  465. 

Kansas. — Harsh  v.  Morgan,  1 
Kan.  293. 

Jfew  York. — Gay  v.  ^Brown,  1  E. 
D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  725.  See  §24. 
Where  the  owner  of  land  con- 
tracts to  sell  it  and  advance 
money  to  the  purchaser  to  build 
thereon,  a  mechanic's  lien  for  la- 
bor performed,  filed  before  the 
giving  of  the  deed,  affects  the  ti- 
tle of  the  purchaser  only.  Halla- 
han  V.  Herbert,  4  Daly  209,  11 
Abb.  Prac.  326. 

9  Idaho.  —  Steel  v.  Argentine 
Min.  Co.,  4  Idaho  505,  42  Pac.  585. 

Montana. — Block  v.  Murray,  12 
Mont.  545,  31  Pac.  550. 

]Vebraska. — Fuller  v.  Pauley,  48 
Neb.  138,  66  N.  W.  1115;  Burling- 
im  V.  Warner,  39  Neb.  493,  58  N. 
W.  132. 

OUo. — ^Mutual  Aid  Building  & 
Loan  Co.  v.  Gashe,  56  Ohio  St. 
273,  46  N.  E.  985. 

Texas. — Smith  v.  Huckaby,  4 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  80,  23  S.  W.  397. 

"Washing-ton. — Iliff  v.  Forssell,  7 


Wash.  225,  34  Pac.  928;  St.  Paul, 
&c..  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bolton,  5 
Wash.  763,  32  Pac.  787. 

1*^  Johnson  v.  Badger  Lumber 
Co.,  8  Kan.  App.  580,  55  Pac.  517; 
Getto  V.  Friend,  46  Kan.  24,  26 
Pac.  473;  Mentzer  v.  Peters,  6 
Wash.  540,  33  Pac.  1078;  Hickey 
V.  Collom,  47  Minn.  565,  50  N.  W. 
918.  Where  the  owner  of  land 
contracts  to  sell  it  and  advance 
money  to  the  purchaser  to  build 
thereon,  a  mechanic's  lien  for  la- 
bor performed,  filed  before  the 
giving  of  the  deed,  affects  the  title 
of  the  purchaser  only.  Hallahan 
V.  Herbert,  4  Daly  (N.  Y.)  209,  11 
Abb.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   325. 

11  Boyd  V.  Blake,  42  Minn.  1, 
43  N.  W.  485. 

12  Rusche  V.  Pittman,  34  Inu. 
App.  159,  70  N.  E.  382.  An  agree- 
ment with  a  conditional  purchas- 
er of  land  that  improvements 
thereon  must  be  made  at  his  cost 
and  the  owner  will  not  be  liable 
for  labor  or  material,  will  not  "e- 
lieve  the  land  from  the  lien  on 
default  of  the  purchaser,  as  the 
owner   of  the  land,   to   protect   it 


§144] 


OPERATION   AND   EFFECT   OF   PERFECTED   LIEN. 


378 


§  144.     Priority  between  mechanics  and  material  men. — The 

matter  of  priority  of  Hens  between  difTerent  persons  furnishing 
material  or  work  for  the  same  building-  is  largely  regulated  by 
statute  and  where  there  is  no  statute,  all  will  stand  on  an 
equality.^  In  all  cases,  the  claimant  must  pursue  the  way 
pointed  out  by  the  statute,  if  he  is  to  have  any  preference.^ 
There  is  no  priority  between  the  claims  for  labor  and  those  for 
material  furnished  upon  the  same  building  and  within  the 
same  period,  and  by  persons  in  the  same  class.^     A  contractor 


from  statutory  liens,  must  give 
the  statutory  notice,  or  some  no- 
tice equivalent  thereto.  Ah  Louis 
V.  Harwood,  140  Cal.  500,  74  Pac. 
41.  The  purchaser  agreed  to  pay 
a  part  of  the  price  on  delivery  of 
the  deeds,  and  to  secure  the  bal- 
ance by  a  mortgage,  to  be  junior 
to  another  mortgage  to  be  placed 
thereon  by  the  purchaser,  not  to 
exceed  $1,500,  to  secure  funds 
with  which  to  pay  for  improve- 
ments which  he  agreed  to  make. 
The  purchaser  did  not  make  the 
first  payment,  but,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  owner,  made  the  im- 
provements, but  did  not  negotiate 
the  mortgage.  Held,  that  persons 
furnishing  material  and  labor  in 
making  such  improvement  are 
entitled  to  a  lien  on  the  premises 
to  an  amount  not  exceeding  $1,- 
500.  Jones  v.  Osborn,  108  Iowa 
409,  79  N.  W.  143. 

1  Illinois. — Mehrle  v.  Dunne,  75 
111.  239;  Buchter  v.  Dew,  39  111. 
40. 

Louisiana.  —  Succession  of 
Erard,  6  Rob.  (La.)  333;  Nolte  v. 
His  Creditors,  6  Mart.  (N.  S.) 
(La.)    168. 

IVew  Jersey.  —  Donnelly  v. 
Johnes,  58   N.   J.  Bq.   442;    44  Atl. 


180;  Leary  v.  Lamont,  (N.  J.  Eq.) 
42  Atl.  97. 

Oliio. — Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2 
Ohio  St.  114. 

Oregon.  —  Willamette  Falls 
Transp.  &  Mill  Co.  v.  Riley,  1  Ore. 
183. 

Pennsylvania. — Babb  v.  Reed,  5 
Rawle  (Pa.)  151,  28  Am.  Dec.  650. 

Federal. — In  re  Hoyt,  3  Biss 
436,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,805.  See  Dec. 
&  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§  194. 

2  Kendall  v.  Pickard,  67  N.  H. 
470,  32  Atl.  763;  Public  Schools  in 
Trenton  v.  Heath,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  22. 

3  Bradley  &  Currier  Co.  v. 
Ward,  15  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  386,  44 
N.  Y.  Supp.  164;  Moxley  v.  Shei- 
ard,  3  Cal.  64;  Henry  v.  Coats- 
worth  Co.  V.  Fisherdick,  37  Neb. 
207,  55  N.  W.  643;  Leary  v.  La- 
mont (N.  J.  Eq.)  42  Atl.  97.  Under 
statutes  which  provide  that  a 
payment  by  the  owner  before  no- 
tice will  release  that  amount 
from  liability  to  a  lien,  a  bona 
fide  assignment  of  the  same  by 
the  contractor,  gives  to  the  as- 
signee a  priority  to  the  extent  of 
the  amount  assigned.  Hall  v. 
City  of  New  York,  79  App.  Div. 
(N.   Y.)    102,   79   N.   Y.   Supp.   979. 


379 


PRIORITY  BETWEEN    MECHANICS. 


[§145 


must  yield  priority  in  the  funds  arising  from  the  sale  of  the 
building  to  those  who  have  been  employed  by  him,^  as  well 
as  to  claims  of  material  men  under  him.^  He  must  wait  until 
these  are  paid  before  he  can  participate  in  the  distribution.^ 
There  is  no  uniformity  as  to  the  rights  of  subcontractors  and 
some  courts  hold  that  the  one  perfecting  his  claim  first,  is  en- 
titled to  priority  over  his  fellow  subcontractor  or  material 
man,"^  while  others  hold, — and  this  seems  the  better  doctrine 
— that  all  who  comply  with  the  law  within  the  time  permitted 
shall  share  pro  rata.^ 

§  145.  Priority  between  mechanics  and  material  men — As- 
signment of  contract. — The  assignee  of  a  contract  stands  in  no 
better  position  than  his  assignor.^  In  one  case  the  defendant, 
a  subcontractor  under  a  contractor  on  a  building,  filed  his  lien 
for  work  and  materials  the  same  day  an  assignment  of  the  con- 
tractor's claim  and  a  lien  therefor  were  filed,  but  several  hours 


4  Thomas  v.  Stewart,  132  N.  Y. 
580,  30  N.  E.  577;  Lay  v.  Millette, 
1  Phila.   (Pa.)  513. 

5  Pell  V.  Baur,  133  N.  Y.  377,  31 
N.  E.  324. 

6  Vogel  V.  Luitwieler.  52  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  184,  5  N.  Y.  Supp.  154. 

1  Wood  V.  Grifenhagen,  37  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  553,  75  N.  Y.  Supp.  1014. 
Workmen  and  materialmen  who 
serve  stop  orders  under  the  stat- 
ute, on  the  owner,  in  regard  In 
the  money  due  or  to  become  due 
to  the  contractor,  are  entitled  to 
be  paid  in  the  order  of  priority 
in  which  notices  are  served,  and 
not  pro  rata.  Smith  v.  Dodge  & 
Bliss  Co.,  59  N.  J.  Eq.  584,  44  Atl. 
639.  Where  a  subcontractor  has 
complied  with  Code,  Va.  §  2470, 
providing  that  if,  before  furnish- 
ing material  to  a  general  con- 
tractor, he  shall  give  notice  to 
the  owner  that  he  is  about  to  fur- 


nish such  material,  and  within  30 
days  after  it  is  furnished  shall 
give  a  verified  account  thereof  to 
the  owner  and  contractor,  the 
owner  shall  become  personally  li- 
able therefor,  such  claim  should 
be  allowed  in  full  in  an  action  to 
apportion  among  subcontractors 
a  balance  due  the  general  con- 
tractor by  the  owner.  Schrieber 
V.  Citizens'  Bank,  99  Va.  257,  38 
S.  B.  134,  3  Va.  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  185. 

8  Beardsley  v.  Brown,  71  III. 
App.  199;  Bayonne  Building  & 
Loan  Assn.  v.  Williams,  57  N.  J. 
Eq.  503,  42  Atl.  172;  Baumgarten 
V.  Mauer,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  60  S. 
W.  451;  Long  v.  Abeles  &  Co., 
(Ark.)  93  S.  W.  67. 

9  Andrews  &  Hitchcock  Iron  Co. 
V  Smead  Heating  &  Ventilating 
Co.,  7  Ohio  N.  P.  439,  5  Ohio  S.  & 
C.   P.   Dec.   292. 


146] 


OPERATION   AND  EFFECT   OF   PERFECTED   LIEN. 


380 


thereafter.  It  was  held  that  the  defendant's  lien  must  take 
precedence,  plaintifif  having  accjuired  no  greater  rights  than 
those  of  his  assignor.^*^ 

§  146.  Generally  no  priority  by  reason  of  time  of  furnish- 
ing work  or  materials. — As  a  general  rule,  there  is  no  priority 
resting  upon  the  priority  of  time  of  beginning  work  or  fur- 
nishing materials,  if  done  or  furnished  within  the  time  limit,^ 
or  in  the  time  of  making,^  or  filing  the  contract.^  Under  some 
statutes  mechanics  are  entitled  to  liens  in  the  order  of  the 
filing  of  their  claims."*  Other  statutes  provide  that  all  liens 
filed  within  the  period  allowed  by  law  shall  share  equally.^ 
And  still  others  give  priority  to  the  one  first  furnishing  the 
material.^  Where  the  liens  of  some  of  the  contract- 
ors are  prior  to  incumbrances,  and  the  liens  of 
others  are  later  than  the  incumbrances,  they  should 
be  paid  in  this  order,"  and  this  may  be  true,  even 
though  there  is  no  priority  between  the  mechanic's  liens.^  But 
where  a  statute  directs  that  all  liens  shall  stand  upon  an  equal 
footing  an  intervening  incumbrance  is  subject  to  all  liens. ^ 
As  a  rule  it  may  be  said  that  all  persons  making  the  contract 
with  the  owner  are  in  one  class  and  as  between  themselves 


10  English  v.  Lee,  63  Hun  (N. 
Y.)   572,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  576. 

1  Crowell  V.  Gilmore,  18  Cal. 
370. 

2  Wing  V.  Carr,  86  111.  347. 

3  Jamison  v.  Barelli,  20  La. 
Ann.  452. 

4  Robertson  v.  Barrack,  80  Iowa 
538,  45  N.  W.  1062;  Kaylor  v. 
O'Connor,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.) 
672. 

5  St.  Louis  V.  O'Neill  Lumber 
Co.,  114  Mo.  74,  21  S.  W.  484;  Bay- 
onne  Building  &  Loan  Assn.  v. 
Williams,  57  N.  J.  Eq.  503,  42  Atl. 
172. 

6  ^Morrison  v.  Carey-Lombard 
Co.,  9  Utah,  70,  33  Pac.  238. 


"  Crowell  V.  Gilmore,  18  Cal. 
370;  Finlayson  v.  Crooks,  47 
Minn.   74,  49  N.  W.   398,   645. 

8  As  between  mechanics'  liens, 
the  law  allows  no  priority;  but 
where  a  mortgage  takes  effect  af- 
ter the  commencement  of  one  or 
more  mechanics'  liens,  but  before 
the  commencement  of  others, 
the  subsequent  liens  must  be 
postponed  to  the-  mortgage  lien, 
though  this  disposition  also  post- 
pones them  to  the  prior  mechan- 
ics' liens.  Hazard  Powder  Co.  v. 
Loomis,   2  Disney    (Ohio)    544. 

9  Oriental  Hotel  Co.  v.  Griffiths, 
88  Tex.  574,  33  S.  W.  652,  53  Am. 
St.  790,  30  L.  R.  A.  765. 


381  EQUALITY  OF  LIENS  ON  SAME  JOB.  [§  147 

share  pro  rata,  likewise  all  contracting-  with  a  principal  con- 
tractor share  pro  rata  in  the  fund  coming  to  him,  and  so  on 
ad  infinitum. ^'J  This  may  be  varied  by  statutory  provisions.^  ^ 
If  the  constitution  provides  for  an  equality  among  lien  holders 
this  cannot  be  changed  by  the  legislature. ^2 

§  147.     Equality   of   liens   upon   same   job — Ohio   statute. — 

Section  3188  of  the  Ohio  Statutes  provides  that  if  several  liens 
be  obtained  by  several  persons,  upon  the  same  job,  in  the  man- 
ner prescribed  in  the  foregoing  sections,  they  shall  have  no 
priority  among  themselves,  and  a  lien  of  a  prom^issory  note 
described  in  any  statement  filed  as  provided  in  said  sections 
shall  take  effect  from  the  date  of  the  first  of  the  items,  in- 
cluded in  it;  all  payments  on  said  liens  shall  be  made  pro 
rata.i  Under  this  section,  all  persons  having  liens  for  the 
work  on  the  same  job,  share  equally  in  whatever  proceeds  may 
be  realized  under  the  lien.  "Job"  is  the  whole  of  a  thing  done. 
The  same  job  here  would  include  all  who  had  done  work  on 
the  structure  considered  as  an  entirety.  If  the  matter  under 
consideration   was   the   building  of  a  house,   then   it   will   in- 

10  Evans  v.  Lower,  67  N.  J.  Eq.  corporation  whose  property  has 
232,  .58  Atl.  294;  McConologue  v.  been  transferred  to  a  receiver, 
Larkins,  32  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  166,  66  are  entitled  to  a  preference  over 
N.  Y.  Supp.  188;  Saginaw  Bay  Co.  the  holders  of  mechanics'  liens 
V.  Engel,  9  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  632,  10  filed  against  the  same  property 
Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  234;  Keim  v.  Mc-  before  the  corporation  acquired 
Roberts,  18  Pa.'  Super.  Ct.  167.  it.  Haw  v.  Burch,  110  Iowa  234, 
Mechanic  does  not  include  sub-  81  N.  W.  460.  After  the  10  days, 
contractor.  Miltimore  v.  Nofziger  the  funds  due  before  are  to  be 
Bros.  Lumber  Co.,  150  Cal.  790,  90  regarded  as  appropriated,  to  the 
Pac.  114.  extent  of  the  liens  filed  before  the 

11  Under  Acts  23d  Gen.  Assem.  expiration  of  the  10  days.  Sag- 
Iowa,  c.  48,  providing  that  when  inaw  Bay  Co.  v.  Engel,  9  Ohio  Cir. 
the  property  of  any  firm  or  cor-  Ct.  632,  10  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  234. 
poration  shall  be  seized  under  pro-  12  Stimson  Mill  Co.  v.«Nolan,  5 
cess  or  put  in  the  hands  of  a  Cal.  App.  754,  91  Pac.  262. 
receiver,  debts  owing  to  laborers  1  95  Ohio  Laws  211;  91  Ohio 
"shall  be  considered  and  treated  Laws  135;  84  Ohio  Laws  46,  47; 
as  preferred  *  *  *  and  shall  Rev.  Stat.  1880;  74  Ohio  Laws, 
be    paid   first,"   labor     claimants,  168,  §  5. 

who  have  performed  labor  for  a 


§  147]  OPERATION   AND   EFFECT   OF   PERFECTED   LIEN.  382 

elude  whatever  may  be  reached  by  a  lien  on  the  house.  This 
equality,  however,  may  be  disturbed  in  cases  where  one  cred- 
itor had  a  lien  on  another  fund  or  property;  then  in  equity  he 
will  be  required  to  exhaust  such  other  fund  before  he  can 
participate  in  the  one  under  the  same  job.^  So  too,  the  equal- 
ity will  be  destroyed  where  one  proceeded  strictly  according 
to  the  law,  and  the  other  did  not  or  w^here  some  intervening 
rights  have  been  acquired.  Thus,  if  after  one  has  commenced 
his  work,  and  before  another  has  done  so,  a  mortgage  is  put 
on  the  premises,  then  as  a  matter  of  course,  the  latter  will 
be  postponed  to  the  mortgage  lien.^  But  equities  being  equal, 
the  legislature  intended  an  equal  distribution.^  And  under 
ordinary  circumstances,  one  lien  holder  should  not  have  prior- 
ity over  another.^  The  lien  is  prior  to  a  levy  made  after  it 
has  attached.*^  As  between  the  subcontractors,  all  in  the  same 
class  will  pro  rate  equally,  but  where  a  subcontractor  gives 
notice,  his  lien  on  the  fund  is  prior  to  that  of  an  attaching  cred- 
itor.'^ Where  material  men  furnished  material  to  a  contractor 
the  material  of  one  being  used,  and  that  of  another  not,  the 
query  has  been  made  whether  the  equity  of  the  one  furnishing 
should  not  be  considered  superior  to  the  other.^  A  vendor's 
lien  is  prior  to  that  of  a  mechanic,^  the  mechanic  merely  having 
a  lien  on  the  interest  of  the  purchaser.^^  Where  the  progress 
of  the  completion  of  a  house  is  suspended  by  decease  of  the 

2  Fassett  v.  Traber,  20  Ohio  St.  Ohio  Dec.  (Re.)  440,  2  Handy 
540.     See  §  241.  (Ohio)    274. 

3  Hazard  Powder  Co.  v.  Loomis,  s  Bender  v.  Stettinius,  10  Ohio 
13  Ohio  Dec.  (Re.)  333,  2  Disney  Dec.  (Re.)  186,  19  ^Tily.  L.  Bull. 
Ohio  544.  163. 

'1  Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2  Ohio  »  IMiitual  Aid  Bldg.  &  Loan  Co.  v. 

St.  114.  Gashe,   56   Ohio   St.   273,   46  N.  E. 

5  Ohio  Savings,  Loan,  &c.,  Co.  v.      985. 

Johnson,  10  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  752,  20  lo  Neil   v.    Kinney,   11    Ohio    St. 

Ohio  C.   C.  96.  58;  Walbridge  v.  Barrett,  11  Ohio 

6  Gibbons  v.  Brewer,  1  O.  S.  U.  Cir.  Dec.  634,  21  Ohio  C.  C.  522; 
554,  37  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  90.  Anderson    v.    Gregg,    6    Ohio    Cir. 

7  McCullom     V.    Richardson,   12  Dec.  629.  10  Ohio  C.  C.  311. 


383 


EQUALITY  OF  LIENS  ON   SAME  JOB. 


:§i47 


owner,  the  priority  of  a  material  man  is  not  lost  to  the  benefit 
of  an  attaching  creditor  on  a  levy  made  after  decease  of  the 
owner.ii  Mortgages  given  before  the  lien  attaches,  of  course 
are  prior  to  the  lien.^^  g^^^  jf  the  mortgage  is  given  after  com- 
mencement of  the  work  or  furnishing  of  the  material  then  the 
claim  of  the  mechanic  is  prior. ^^  This  will  be  true  although 
the  mortgage  was  given  for  funds  procured  in  the  erection  of 
the  building.!'*  ^  mortgage  given  for  advances  placed  on  rec- 
ord prior  to  the  attaching  of  the  lien  will  be  prior  to  such  lien, 
but  it  might  be  otherwise  if  there  was  an  agreement  to  hold 
some  of  the  money. ^^  The  mechanic  is  bound  to  look  to  the 
title  of  the  property,  wdien  he  furnishes  his  material  or  labor, 
and  cannot  claim  a  lien  on  a  larger  interest  therein  than  is 
held  by  the  owner.!*"^  Creditors  of  a  head  contractor  who  have 
secured  their  claims  prior  to  the  giving  of  notice  by  subcon- 
tractor, are  entitled  to  priority  over  the  latter.^'^  The  assign- 
ees of  contracts,  standing  in  the  place  of  contractors,  are  sub- 
ordinate to  the  claims  of  material  men  which  have  been  ac- 
quired in  the  property.^® 


11  Holbrook  v.  Ives,  44  Ohio  St. 
516,  9  N.  E.  228. 

12  Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2  Ohio 
St.  114;  West  v.  Klotz,  37  Ohio 
St.  420,  6  WklJ^  L.  BulL  763; 
Feike  v.  Railway  Co.,  5  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.  640,  12  Ohio  C.  C.  362;  To- 
ledo, &c.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hamilton,  134 
U.  S.  296,  33  L.  ed.  905,  10  Sup.  Ct. 
546,  6  Ohio  Fed.  Dec.  537;  In  re 
Cincinnati  Consumers  Brew.  Co., 
9  Ohio  Dec.  519,  6  Ohio  N.  P.  472. 

13  Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2  Ohio 
St.  114;  Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  Sow- 
den,  55  Ohio  St.  332,  46  N.  E.  320; 
Mutual  Aid  Bldg.,  &c.,  Co.  v. 
Gashe,  6  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  779,  18 
Ohio  C.  C.  681. 

14  Mutual  Aid  Bldg.  &c.,  L.  Co. 


V.  Gashe,  6  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  779,  18 
Ohio  C.  C.  681. 

15  Resting  v.  Donahue,  6  Ohio 
Cir.  Dec.  262,  13  Ohio  C.  C.  653,  2 
Ohio  Dec.  567. 

10  Mutual  Aid  Bldg.  &  L.  Co.  v. 
Gashe,  56  Ohio  St.  273,  46  N.  E. 
985.  As  to  how  distribution  made, 
where  a  lien  is  secured  and  the 
owner  afterwards  places  a  mort- 
gage upon  the  property,  and  after- 
ward the  second  contractor  se- 
cures a  lien,  see  Ohio  Savings, 
Loan,  &c.,  Co.,  v.  Johnson,  10 
Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  752. 

17  Bergin  v.  Braun,  15  Ohio  Dec. 
383,  3  Ohio  N.  P.  (N.  S.)  150. 

IS  Andrews,  &c..  Iron  Co.  v. 
Smead  Heating,  &c.,  Co.,  5  Ohio 
Dec.  292,  7  Ohio  N.  P.  439. 


§  148]  OPERATION   AND   EFFECT   OF  PERFECTED   LIEN.  384 

§  148,  Pro  rata  payment  of  subcontractors  out  of  subse- 
quent payments  due  head  contractors — Ohio  statute. — Sec- 
tion 3197  of  the  Ohio  statutes  provides  that  all  other  sub- 
contractors, material  men,  laborers,  mechanics  or  persons  fur 
nishing  material,  fuel  or  machinery  who,  before  the  first  subse- 
quent payment  falls  due  after  the  deposit  of  a  copy  of  such 
statement  with  the  county  recorder  by  any  subcontractor,  ma- 
terial or  machinery  man,  laborer,  or  person  furnishing-  ma- 
terial, or  within  ten  days  thereafter,  file  with  such  owner, 
board,  officer  or  authorized  clerk,  agent  or  attorney  thereof, 
a  sworn  and  itemized  statement  or  estimate  of  the  labor,  ma- 
chinery, fuel  or  material  furnished  or  to  be  furnished  by  them 
under  a  contract  with  a  principal  or  subcontractor,  containing 
a  description  of  any  promissory  note  or  notes  given  for  the 
same,  or  any  part  thereof,  shall  be  paid  pro  rata  with  the 
person  first  so  filing  such  statement  and  with  each  other,  out 
of  said  first  and  other  subsequent  payments  so  falling  due ; 
but  upon  failure  so  to  do,  they  shall  have  no  recourse  against 
the  owner,  board,  officer,  or  the  clerk  or  agent  thereof  for 
any  prior  payments  made  under  his  contract  with  his  head 
contractor  or  subcontractor.^^ 

148a.     Priority — Indiana  Statute. — 

1.     When  lien  attaches. 

Liens  duly  filed  for  record  are  deemed  recorded  from  the 
time  they  are  filed  in  the  office  of  the  county  recorder  for  that 
purpose,!  whether  the  recorder  actually  copies  them  into  the 
proper  record  or  not.2  Even  if  he  should  erroneously  record 
a  lien  in  a  book  not  authorized  by  law,  instead  of  the  miscel- 

19  97  Ohio  Laws  501.    See  §§  90,  2  Adams    v.    Shaffer,    132    Ind. 

91,  147.  331,  31  N.  E.  1108;  Northwestern, 

1  Wilson   V.     Hopkins,     51    Ind.  etc.,  Assn.  v.  McPherson,  23  Ind. 

231;    Northwestern,  etc.,  Assn.   v.  App.  250,  54  N.  E.  130;    Kratz  v. 

McPherson,   23   Ind.   App.   250,  54  A.   R.   Beck  Lumber  Co.,   34   Ind. 

N.  E.  130.  App.   577,  591,  73  N.   E.   273. 


385  PRIORITY INDIANA  STATUTE.  [§  148a 

laneous  record,^  the  lien  will  not  thereby  be  defeated  any 
more  than  if  it  had  not  been  copied  into  a  book  at  all.'*  But 
when  a  lien  is  recorded  in  the  wrong  book  the  unauthorized 
record  thus  made  will  not  be  competent  evidence  in  a  court 
as  a  proper  record  of  the  lien  would  be.^ 

A  mechanic's  lien  is  perfected,  and  in  that  sense  is  acquired 
by  filing  a  proper  notice;*^  and  where  the  notice  is  not  filed 
within  the  time  allowed  there  can  be  no  lien,  except  in  favor 
of  employes  of  corporations  and  others  for  work  done  in  carry- 
ing on  a  business  for  which  the  claimant's  wages  are  unpaid." 
All  liens  so  created  by  filing  notices  shall  relate  to  the  time 
when  the  mechanic  or  other  person  began  to  perform  the 
labor  or  furnish  the  materials  or  machinery,^  and  shall  have 
priority  over  all  liens  suffered  or  created  thereafter,  except  the 
liens  of  other  mechanics  and  material  men,  as  to  which  there 
shall  be  no  priority.^ 

2.     Priority  as  against  mortgages. 


Under  the  foregoing  rule  a  mortgage  executed  before  the 
work  was  begun  or  the  first  of  the  materials  were  furnished 
is  prior  to  mechanics'  liens, ^'^  so  far  as  the  land  itself  is  con- 

3  Adams    v.     Shaffer,    132    Ind.  Co.,  160  Ind.  202,  65  N.  E.  583. 
331,    31    N.    E.    1108;    Northwest-  7  Burns"      1908,      §7976,      7983, 
ern,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  McPherson,  23  8288,   8289. 

Ind.  App.  250,  54  N.  E.  130;   Wil-  s  Acts  1909,  p.  295  §4,  re-enact- 

son  V.  Hopkins,  51  Ind.  231.  ing    Burns'    1908,    §     8298.      Mark 

4  Wilson  V.  Hopkins,  51  Ind.  v.  Murphj%  76  Ind.  534;  Fleming 
231.  V.  Bumgarner,  29   Ind.   424;    Zeh- 

5  Adams  v.  Buhler,  131  Ind.  66,  ner  v.  Johnston,  22  Ind.  App.  452, 
30  N.  E.  883;  Adams  v.  Shaffer,  53  N.  E.  1080;  Kratz  v.  A.  R. 
132  Ind.  331,  31  N.  E.  1108.  Beck    Lumber    Co.,    34    Ind.    App. 

6  Wilson   V.     Hopkins,    51    Ind.  577,   73    N.   E.   273. 

231;    Adams   v.    Shaffer,   132    Ind.  »  Acts    1909,    p.    295,    §4,    re-en- 

331,  31  N.  E.  1108;  Northwestern,  acting   Burns'    1908,    §8298. 

etc.,  Assn.  v.  McPherson,  23  Ind.  lo  Thorpe   Block,    etc.,   Assn.   v. 

App.    250,    54    N.    E.    130;    Sulzer  James,  13  Ind.  App.  522,  41  N.  E. 

Vogt.   M.   Co.   V.  Rushville   Water  978;    Zehner  v.  Johnston,  22  Ind. 

26 


§  148a]         OPERATION   AND  EFFECT   OF   PERFECTED  LIEN.  386 

cerned/^  unless  the  mortgagee's  failure  to  record  his  mortgage 
within  the  time  allowed  by  the  statute  shall  defeat  its  pri- 
ority.i2  But  actual  notice  of  an  unrecorded  conveyance  or 
encumbrance  is  as  effective  as  the  constructive  notice  afforded 
by  recording  it;^^  ^nd  mechanics  and  material  men  are  charged 
with  notice  of  the  title  of  a  person  in  actual  possession  of 
land  claiming  title  under  a  conveyance  that  has  not  been  re- 
corded.^^  If  a  mortgage  executed  prior  to  the  attaching  of  a 
mechanic's  lien  is  withheld  from  record  beyond  the  statutory 
period  of  forty-five  days  allowed  for  recording  mortgages^^ 
and  is  afterward  recorded,  mechanics'  liens  for  labor  done  and 
materials  furnished  before  it  was  actually  recorded  will  have 
priority.^ "^  Where  the  mortgage  itself  was  duly  recorded, 
delay  in  recording  an  assignment  was  held  not  to  affect  the 
assignee's  priority.^'^  Mechanics'  liens  also  have  priority  over 
a  mortgage  executed  between  the  date  when  the  first  labor 
is  performed  or  the  first  materials  are  furnished  and  the  date 
of  filing  the  notice. ^^ 

3.    Priority  as  against  wife's  inchoate  interest. 

The  inchoate  (dower)  interest  of  a  wife  in  her  husband's 
lands  is  not  subject  to  a  mechanic's  lien  thereon  ;^^  and  where 
that  interest  becomes  vested  by  virtue  of  a  judicial  sale,  either 

App.  452,  53  N.  E.  1080;   Kratz  v.  624,  44  N.  E.  632.     This  case  was 

A.   R.   Beck  Lumber  Co.,  34   Ind.  overruled   as   to     another     point. 

App.  577,  591,  73  N.  E.  273.  Sulzer-Vogt    M.    Co.    v.    Rushville 

11  Acts  1909,  p.  295,  §2,  re-  Water  Co.,  160  Ind.  202,  65  N.  E. 
enacting  Burns'   1908,   §8296.  583;  McDaniel  v.  Osborn,  166  Ind. 

12  Jenckes  v.  Jenckes,   145  Ind.  1,  75  N.  E.   647. 

624,   44  N.   E.   632.  i7  Zehner   v.    Johnston,   22   Ind. 

13  State  V.  Backus,  160  Ind.  App.  452,  458,  53  N.  E.  1080.  See 
682,  67  N.  E.   512.  Burns'   1908,    §§     1146-1149. 

14  Kratz  V.  A.  R.  Beck  Lumber  is  Northwestern,  etc.,  Assn.  v. 
Co.,  34  Ind.  App.  577,  592,  73  N.  McPherson,  23  Ind.  App.  250,  54 
E.    273.  N.   E.   130. 

15  Burns  1908,  §  3962.  19  Mark  v.     Murphy,     76     Ind. 
10  Jenckes  v.   Jenckes,  145  Ind.      534. 


387  CONTINUANCE  OF  PRIORITY INDIANA  STATUTE.       [§  148a 

upon  a  decree  for  the  foreclosure  of  such  lien-'^  or  otherwise, 
or  by  the  husband's  death,^!  the  wife's  interest  may  be  held, 
assigned  and  set  off  by  partition,  freed  from  the  lien.  Accord- 
ingly it  was  held  that  where  a  wife  joined  in  the  execution 
of  a  mortgage  on  her  husband's  land  that  was  already  subject 
to  a  mechanic's  lien  the  mortage  had  priority  as  to  her  one- 
third  interest.22  And  where  the  estate  of  a  decedent,  which 
was  set  off  to  his  widow  under  the  statute^s  as  being  worth 
less  than  five  hundred  dollars,  included  land  against  which 
a  mechanic's  lien  had  been  filed  for  his  debt,  the  widow's 
right  was  held  superior  to  the  mechanic's  lien.^^ 

4.     Continuance  and  loss  of  priority. 

A  prior  mortgage  will  be  kept  alive  and  not  permitted  to 
merge  in  a  title  subsequently  acquired  when  necessary  to  pro- 
tect the  good  faith  purchaser  of  such  title  against  a  mechanic's 
lien,  as  in  the  case  of  other  liens.^^  The  priority  of  a  mortgage 
may  be  waived  in  favor  of  subsequent  mechanics'  liens,  either 
by  an  express  agreement  to  waive  it  in  favor  of  the  expense 
of  making  improvements,^^  or  by  acts  or  omissions  with  re- 
lation to  such  liens  which  make  it  inequitable  that  the  mort- 
gagee should  hold  an  acquired  priority.^'^ 

The  priority  of  a  mechanic's  lien  over  junior  mortgages,^^  as 
well  as  its  effect  as  a  lien  on  the  interest  of  the  owner^^  ceases, 

20  Mark  v.  Murphy,  76  Ind.  534.       James,  13  Ind.  App.  522,  41  N.  B. 

21  Lloyd   V.   Arney,  —Ind.   App.      978. 

— ,  87  N.  E.  989.  28  Deming-Colburn    Co.    v.    Un- 

22  Mark  v.  Murphy,  76  Ind.  534.  ion,   etc.,   Assn.,   151   Ind.   463,   51 

23  Burns'    1908,    §2944-2946.  N.    E.   936;    Stoermer  v.    Peoples' 

24  Lloyd  V.   Arney,  —Ind.   App.  Bank,  152  Ind.  104,  52  N.  E.  606; 
— ,  87   N.   E.   989.  Union,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Helberg,  152 

25Coburn  v.  Stephens,  137  Ind.  Ind.  139,  51  N.  E.  916;  Kratz  v. 
683,  688,  36  N.  E.  132.  A.   R.   Beck  Lumber   Co.,   34   Ind. 

2G  Claypool    V.    German   F.    Ins.      App.  577,  73  N.  E.  273. 
Co.,  32  Ind.  App.  540,  70  N.  E.  281.  29  Acts    1909,    p.    297,     §  5,     re- 

27  Thorpe   Block,   etc.,   Assn.   v.      enacting  Burns'     1908,     §      8299. 

Acts  1909,  p.  335,   §§  3,  4. 


§  148a]         OPERATION    AND   EFFECT   OF   PERFECTED  LIEN.  388 

and  the  lien  becomes  absolutely  void  as  against  such  mort- 
gagee, unless  he  is  made  a  party  to  a  suit  to  foreclose  it  within 
one  year.  A  foreclosure  against  the  owner  without  joining 
the  junior  mortgagee-  results  in  the  lien  becoming  void  as 
against  the  latter  upon  the  expiration  of  the  year  allowed 
for  foreclosing.-^*^  And  where  a  mechanic's  lien  had  been 
foreclosed  without  making  the  holder  of  a  junior  mortgage 
a  party  to  the  suit,  and  the  lienholder  had  become  the  pur- 
chaser of  the  land  at  foreclosure  sale,  it  was  held  that  he 
had  merely  the  right  which  the  owner  would  have  had  to 
redeem  from  the  junior  mortgage;  all  his  rights  as  a  lien- 
holder  had  expired  when  the  year  for  bringing  suit  to  enforce 
his  lien  ended.^^ 

5.    Removal  of  buildings. 

Where  mortgaged  property  is  improved  by  the  erection  of 
new  buildings  the  priority  of  the  mortgage  is  confined  to  the 
land  as  it  was  before  the  improvements  were  made.^^  \  jj^q. 
chanic's  lien,  so  far  as  concerns  the  buildings  erected  by  the 
lien  holder,  is  not  impaired  by  the  foreclosure  of  the  mortgage ; 
but  such  buildings  may  be  sold  to  satisfy  the  lien  and  removed 
within  ninety  days  after  the  sale  by  the  purchaser.^^  The 
same  rule  as  to  permitting  the  sale  and  removal  of  the  build- 
ings applies  when  the  person  who  erected  them  had  only  a 
leasehold  interest  in  the  land.^^  But  the  priority  of  the  me- 
chanic's lien  over  the  mortgage  is  strictly  confined  to  "build- 
so  Deming-Colburn  Co.  v.  Un-  33  Acts  1909,  p.  295,  §  2,  re- 
ion,  etc.,  Assn.,  151  Ind.  463,  51  enacting  Burns'  1908,  §8296. 
N.  E.  936;  Stoermer  v.  Peoples'  Building,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Coeburn, 
Bank,  152  Ind.  104,  52  N.  E.  606;  150  Ind.  684,  50  N.  E.  885;  Car- 
Kratz  V.  A.  R.  Beck  Lumber  Co.,  riger  v.  Mackey,  15  Ind.  App.  392, 
34  Ind.  App.   577,  73  N.  E.   273.           44    N.    E.    266. 

31  Union,  etc.,  Assn.  V.  Helberg,  34  Acts    1909,    p.    295,      §2.     re- 
152  Ind.  139,  51  N.  E.  916.                     enacting  Burns'   1908,   §  8296. 

32  Acts    1909,   p.    295,      §2,     re- 
enacting  Burns'  1908,  §  8296. 


389 


REMOVAL  OF  BUILDING PRIORITY. 


[§  148a 


ings  erected  by  said  lien  holder. "^^  No  benefit  which  the  im- 
provements may  have  conferred  on  the  mortgagee  by  afford- 
ing him  additional  security  can  affect  his  priority,  or  enlarge 
the  rights  of  laborers  and  material  men.^^  Neither  the  interest 
of  an  owner  nor  of  a  mortgagee  in  existing  buildings  can  be 
affected  by  a  lien  for  repairs  thereto  made  without  the  au- 
thority of  the  owner  or  encumbrancer  thus  sought  to  be 
charged.^^  But  a  lien  for  such  repairs  can  be  enforced  against 
the  interest  of  the  person  who  caused  them  to  be  made, 
whether  a  leasehold  interest^^  or  otherwise.^^  Where  such 
interest  is  merely  a  contract  right  of  purchase  the  mechanic's 
lien  for  improvements  made  by  the  purchaser  can  attach  to 
nothing  else ;  even  the  right  to  remove  new  buildings,  which 
exists  when  buildings  are  erected  by  a  lessee  or  mortgagee, 
is  denied. ^*^ 

6.    Priority  of  workmen's  liens  in  case  of  insolvency. 

Although  some  of  the  earlier  cases  declared  a  contrary 
rule,^i  the  principle  is  now  established  in  Indiana  that  a  mort- 
gage executed  before  the  transfer  of  property  to  an  assignee 
or  receiver,  or  the  mortgagor's  bankruptcy  had  given  his  em- 
ployes a  lien  thereon  for  their  wages  without  filing  any  notice,^^ 


35  Thorpe  Block,  etc.,  Assn.  v. 
James,  13  Ind.  App.  522,  41  N.  E. 
978. 

36  Thorpe  Block,  etc.,  Assn.  v. 
James,  13  Ind.  App.  522,  41  N.  E. 
978. 

37  Rusche  V.  Pittman,  34  Ind. 
App.  159,  72  N.  E.  473.  See 
Rhodes  v.  Webb-Jameson  Co.,  19 
Ind.  App.  195,  49  N.  E.  283. 

38  Montpelier,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Steph- 
enson, 22  Ind.  App.  175,  53  N.  E. 
444;  McNally  v.  Glldden,  30  Ind. 
App.  22,  65  N.  E.  291. 


39  Crawford  v.  Anderson,  129 
Ind.  117,  28  N.  E.  314. 

40  Rusche  V.  Pittman,  34  Ind. 
App.  159,  72  N.  E.  473;  Davis  v. 
Elliott,  7  Ind.  App.  246,  34  N.  E. 
591;  Peoples,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Spears, 
115   Ind.   297,   17   N.   E.   570. 

41  Small  V.  Hammes,  156  Ind. 
556,  60  N.  E.  342;  Jenckes  v. 
Jenckes,  145  Ind.  624;  44  N.  E. 
432;  Bell  v.  Hiner,  16  Ind.  App. 
184,  44  N.  E.  576. 

42  Burns'    1908,    §§7976,    7983. 


§149] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


390 


has  priority  over  such  lien.^^  The  earlier  decisions  cited 
above  have  been  overruled. ^^  But  the  lien  which  employes 
of  a  corporation  may  acquire  for  wages  due  them,  by  filing 
a  notice  in  the  recorder's  office, ^^  is  prior  to  any  and  all  liens, 
created  or  acquired,  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the  employment 
of  the  lienor  (unless  he  elects  a  later  date  to  which  the  lien 
shall  relate,  and  specifies  it  in  his  notice),'*'^  and  therefore  has 
priority  over  a  mortgage  executed  after  such  employment 
began.'*" 

§  149.  Priority  affected  by  conveyances. — A  conveyance  of 
the  property  made  after  the  right  to  the  liens  has  attached  is 
made  subject  to  the  lien  right. ^  And  if  the  right  be  perfected, 
as  the  statute  requires,  within  the  time  limit  even  though 
it  is  after  the  purchase  has  been  made  yet  a  purchaser's 
right  is  subordinate  to  the  lien.^  A  trust  deed,^  or  a  volun- 
tary conveyance — though  bona  fide — will  not  be  prior  to  the 


43  McDaniel  v.  Osborn,  166  Ind. 
1,  75  N.   B.   647. 

44  McDaniel  v.  Osborn,  166  Ind. 
1,  75  N.  E.  647;  Sulzer-Vogt  M. 
Co.  V.  Rushville  Water  Co.,  160 
Ind.  202,  65  N.  E.  583. 

45  Burns'  1908,  §  8289. 

46  Burns'  1908,  §§  8288,  8289. 

47  Aurora  Nat.  Bank  v.  Black, 
129  Ind.  595;  McDaniel  v.  Os- 
born,  166   Ind.   1,   75   N.   E.   647. 

1  Diggs  V.  Green,  15  La.  416; 
American  Mortg.  Co.  v.  Merrick 
Const.  Co.,  120  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
150,  104  N.  Y.  Supp.  900. 

Lnniber  for  numerous  buildings. 
— Where  the  lumber  was  fur- 
nished for  the  erection  of  numer- 
ous corn-cribs  at  several  different 
places,  and  the  cribs  were  after- 
wards sold  to  another  party,  it 
was  held  that,  if  any  of  them 
were  complete     when     purchased 


and  it  was  not  shown  that  any  of 
the  lumber  furnished  within  90 
days  of  the  purchase  went  into 
such  completed  cribs,  then  the 
purchaser  took  them  free  from 
any  lien  for  the  lumber — no  state- 
ment for  a  lien  having  been  filed 
until  after  the  purchase.  Roose 
&  Wainwright  v.  Billingsley  & 
Nanson,  74  Iowa  51.  See  Dec.  & 
Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanic's  Liens, 
§197.  Maturity  of  claim,  see  §94. 
Evidence  to  show  right,  see  §256. 
Transfer  of  property,  see  §§  94- 
109. 

2 Atkins  v.  Little,  17  Minn.  342; 
Cogel  v.  Mickow,  11  Minn.  475; 
Dolittle  v.  Plenz,  16  Neb.  153,  20 
N.  W.  116;  Lee  v.  Cook,  2  Wyo. 
312. 

3  Cornell  v.  Conine-Eaton  Lum- 
ber Co.,  9  Colo.  App.  225,  47  Pac. 
912. 


391 


PRIORITY    AFFECTED    BY    CONVEYANCE. 


[§  149 


lien.'*  If  the  lien  extends  to  all  a  part  cannot  be  sold  or  trans- 
ferred free  from  the  lien.-^  and  when  the  lien  right  once  at- 
taches, the  mechanic  is  not  bound  to  search  the  records  to 
ascertain  if  there  has  been  any  change  of  title.'''  In  order  for 
the  conveyance  to  give  to  the  purchaser  priority,  the  deed 
must  be  such  a  one  as  is  entitled  to  record,  if  not,  it  will  not 
give  constructive  notice."  But  a  deed  that  is  absolute,  even 
if  it  is  intended  as  a  mortgage,  is  sufificient  to  give  construc- 
tive notice  that  the  holder  has  some  lien.'^  An  assignee  for 
the  benefit  of  creditors  stands  in  the  shoes  of  his  assignor; 
the  assignment  not  being  a  conveyance  that  will  give  a  su- 
perior claim.^  The  claims  of  mechanics  are  superior  to  those 
of  general  creditors  in  the  fund  arising  from  the  sale  of  the 
property  by  the   assignee.^*' 


4  Hooker  v.  McGlone,  42  Conn. 
95.  A  hotel  company  was  incor- 
porated with  1,000  shares  of  stock, 
of  which  B.  owned  998.  B.  con- 
tracted with  the  company  to  fur- 
nish some  land,  and  build  a  hotel 
thereon,  and  turn  it  over  to  the 
company  when  completed,  he  to 
receive  $100,000  in  bonds  and  the 
same  amount  in  capital  stock. 
When  the  hotel  was  partly  built, 
B.  failed.  He  had  conveyed  the 
lot  to  one  W.,  and  also  delivered 
to  him  $50,000  of  the  bonds  of  the 
company  to  secure  a  debt.  B.  aft- 
erwards made  a  deed  of  the  lot 
to  the  hotel  company.  The  secre- 
tary of  the  hotel  company  pro- 
cured a  deed  of  the  lot  from  W., 
and  bought  the  bonds  from  him, 
giving  his  note  for  $2,500,  in  pay- 
ment. The  hotel  company  ac- 
quired no  such  interest  in  the 
land    as   to   defeat    liens    for   the 


construction  of  the  hotel.  Hous- 
ton V.  Long,  15  Ky.  L.  74,  23  S.  W. 
586.  An  absolute  conveyance  is 
an  incumbrance  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  term.  Warden  v.  Sa- 
bins,   36   Kan.   165,   12   Pac.   522. 

5  Collins  V.  Patch,  156  Mass.  317, 
31  N.  E.  295;  Dunklee  v.  Crane, 
103  Mass.  470. 

6  McAdow  V.  Sturtevant,  41  Mo. 
App.  220. 

"  Lemmer  v.  Morrison,  89  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  277,  35  N.  Y.  Supp.  623, 
2  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  240. 

8  Livesey  v.  Brown,  35  Neb.  111. 
52  N.  W.   838. 

9  Williams  v.  Miller,  2  Ohio  Dec. 
119,  1  West.  L.  Mo.  (Ohio)  409; 
Crump  V.  Gill,  9  Phila.  117,  30 
Leg.  Int.   (Pa.)   116. 

10  Pullis  Bros.  Iron  Co.  v. 
Natchitoches.  51  La.  Ann.  1377,  26 
So.  402;  Reading  Hardware  Co.  v. 
New  York,  27  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  448, 
59  N.  Y.  Supp.  253. 


§  150] 


OPER,\TION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


392 


§  150.  Priority  affected  by  conveyance  during  progress  of 
work. — The  fact  that  the  work  is  in  progress/  is  a  notice 
to  all  of  the  rights  of  the  mechanic,  and  all  conveyances  made 
during  that  time  are  made  subject  to  the  mechanic's  rights.^ 
It  is  immaterial  whether  the  sale  was  fraudulent^  or  bona  fide, 
the  property  is  subject  to  the  lien  that  may  thereafter  be 
perfected  within  the  time  limited  by  statute.^  Under  some 
statutes  the  mechanic's  lien  has  been  allowed  priority,  where 
the  purchaser's  title  was  defective,  even  though  it  was  filed 
after  the  time  limit. ^  Under  the  Massachusetts  statute,  the 
fact  that  the  contract  for  the  work  and  material  has  been 
made,  is  sufficient  to  fix  the  lien  right  and  the  purchaser  takes 
subject  to  the  lien.'^  Under  some  statutes,  conveyances  are 
subject  to  liens  if  the  materials  actually  go  into  the  building.''' 
If  the  contractor  acts  as  an  agent  of  the  purchaser,  this  will 
not  affect  innocent  subcontractors  under  him.^  Where  the 
deed  states  that  the  purchaser  takes  the  property  subject  to 
all  liens,  the  purchaser  is  under  the  same  liability  as  the 
vendor.^     Where  the  statute  requires  the  contract  to  be  re- 


1  Soule  V.  Dawes,  7  Cal.  575; 
Austin  V.  Wohler,  5  111.  App.  300. 

2  Arkansas.— White  v.  Chaffin, 
32  Ark.  59. 

Indiana. — Fleming  v.  Bumgar- 
ner.  29  Ind.  424. 

Massaclmsetts. — D.  L.  Billings 
Co.  V.  Brand,  187  Mass.  417.  73  N. 
E.  637;  Dodge  v.  Hall,  168  Mass. 
435.  47  N.  E.  110. 

Missouri. — Hammond  v.  Dar- 
lington, 109  Mo.  App.  333,  84  S.  W. 
446. 

Xeiv  Jersey. — Bates  Mach.  Co. 
V.  Trenton,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  J.  L. 
684,  58  Atl.  935;  Gordon  v.  Torrey, 
15  X.  J.  Eq.  112,  82  Am.  Dec.  273. 

>'ew  York. — Sinclair  v.  Fitch,  3 
E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  677. 


3  Jefferson  v.  Hopson  Bros.,  27 
Ky.  L.  140,  84  S.  W.  540. 

4  Reynolds  v.  Manhattan  Trust 
Co.,  83  Fed.  593,  27  C.  C.  A.  620. 

5  Floete  V.  Brown,  104  Iowa  154, 
73  N.  W.  483. 

6  Buck  V.  Hall,  170  Mass.  419, 
49  N.  E.  658;  Gale  v.  Blaikie,  126 
Mass.  274. 

"  Hewett  V.  Currier,  63  Wis. 
386,  23  N.  W.   884. 

s  Green  v.  Williams,  92  Tenn. 
220,  21  S.  W.  520,  19  L.  R.  A.  478. 

9  Eggert  &  Flater  v.  Snoke,  122 
Iowa  582,  98  N.  W.  372;  Howes 
V.  Reliance  Wire-Works  Co.,  46 
Minn.  44,  48  N.  W.  448;  Crombie 
V.  Rosenstock,  19  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N. 
Y.)    312. 


393  CONVEYANCE  DURING  PROGRESS  OF  WORK.  [§150 

corded,  and  the  conveyance  is  made  after  labor  has  begun,  a 
contractor  in  ignorance  thereof  will  not  lose  his  lien.^''  Of 
course,  if  the  contracting  party  has  no  such  ownership  as 
will  make  it  lienable,^^  a  sale  thereafter  will  not  be  sub- 
ject to  the  lien. ^2  The  filing  of  a  deed,  ^"  or  notice  of  a  lien 
or  contract,^*  is  constructive  notice  and  all  purchasers  take 
subject  thereto. ^^  To  have  effect,  however,  as  constructive 
notice,  the  filing  must  be  such  a  filing  as  the  law  permits  ;^^  if  not 
filed  within  the  time  limit,  it  will  not  be  efTective.^'^  A 
person  buying  with  notice  of  a  decree  foreclosing  a  lien, 
will  take  it  subject  to  the  same.^^  If  a  purchaser  agrees  to  the 
lien,  then  the  mechanic  may  compel  him  to  pay  the  same  in  a 
proper  action  therefor. ^^ 

§  151.  Priority — Liens  and  incumbrances. — In  the  previous 
section  we  have  seen  that  a  conveyance  is  treated  as  an  in- 
cumbrance, and  it  may  be  said  generally  that  liens  and  in- 
cumbrances stand  upon  the  same  ground  as  conveyances,^ 
and  the  lien  of  a  mechanic  does  not  overreach  such  prior 
liens.2     The  law  in  force  at  the  time  the  obligation  becomes 

10  Baxter  Lumber  Co.  v.  Nickell,  i"  Von  Tobel  v.  Ostrander,  158 
24    Tex.    Civ.   App.    519,   60    S.    W.       111.  499,  42  N.  E.  152. 

450.      But    see   Beehler   v.    Ijams,  is  Frank   v.    Jenkins,    11  "Wash. 

72    Md.    193,    19    Atl.    646.     In    re  611,  40  Pac.  220. 

Gable,  59  Md.  455.  i9  Cullers    v.    First    Nat.    Bank, 

11  Lippman  v.  Low,  69  App.  Div.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  29  S.  W.  72. 

(N.  Y.)    24,  74  N.  Y.  Supp.  516.  i  See    §§  149,    150.      See    Dec.   & 

12  Married  women.  Smith  v.  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
Gauby,  43  Fla.  142,  30  So.  683.  §  198. 

i3Mouat  V.   Fisher,   104     Mich.  2  shaeffer  v.   Weed,    8    111.   511; 

262,  62  N.  W.  338.  Homans     v.   Coombe,    (3     Cranch 

14  Slingerland  v.  Lindsley,  1  N.  (C.  C.)  365),  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,654. 
J.  L.  J.  115.  Under  some  statutes,  the  liens  of 

15  Montandon  v.  Deas,  14  Ala.  the  mechanic  on  the  building  are 
33,  48  Am.  Dec.  84;  Burdick  v.  prior  to  previous  existin,:^  liens 
Moulton,  53  Iowa,  761,  6  N.  W.  48.  on  the  land.     Cooper  Mfg.  Co.  v. 

i«  Shepherd  v.  Leeds,  12  La.  Delahunt,  36  Ore.  402,  60  Pac.  1. 
Ann.  1. 


isr 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


394 


fixed,  controls  in  determining  the  priority  of  liens.-^  And  a 
negligent  claimant,  failing  to  follow  the  statute  will  lose  his 
right  of  priority  to  others  who  are  more  diligent  and  possess 
an  equal  or  stronger  equity.*  Where  a  person  furnishes  per- 
sonal property  that  may  become  a  fixture  he  is  bound  to 
know  that  fact  and  cannot  be  heard  to  complain  if  it  loses  its 
identity  and  is  applied  to  the  payment  of  a  previous  lien  or 
incumbrance.-^  It  is  a  well  settled  proposition  that  the  me- 
chanic's lien  cannot  have  priority  over  valid  liens  existing  on 
the  property  before  the  mechanic's  lien  has  attached.^  And 
the  building  or  structure,  made  through  the  efforts  of  a  me- 
chanic, as  a  general  rule  will  become  absorbed  by  the  real 
estate  and  lose  its  separate  identity  and  become  with  the 
real  estate  subject  to  a  prior  lien  existing  on  the  real  estate." 
Of  course,  where  the  statute  allows  a  lien  on  the  building 
alone,  and  the  building  can  be  removed,  the  mechanic's  lien 
on  the  building  will  have  priority,  and  the  lien  on 
the  land  will  remain  as  it  was  when  the  building  was  erected.^ 
All  liens  attaching  to  the  real  estate  after  the  right  to  a  me- 
chanic's lien  becomes  fixed  are  subject  to  such  prior  me- 
chanic's lien.^     In  order,  however,  that  a  mechanic's  lien  may 


s  Bradley  &  Currier  Co.  v.  Ward, 
162  N.  Y.  618,  57  N.  E.  1105. 

4  Perry  v.  Parrott,  135  Cal.  238, 
67  Pac.  144. 

•T  June  &c.  Co.  v.  Doke,  35  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  240,  80  S.  W.  402. 

0  Georgia. — National  Bank  v. 
Danforth,  80  Ga.  55,  7  S.  E.  546. 

Indiana.  —  Close  v.  Hunt,  8 
Blackf.   (Ind.)   254. 

Maryland. — McKim  v.  Mason,  3 
Md.  Ch.  186;  Jones  v.  Hancock,  1 
Md.  Ch.  187. 

Rhode  Island.  —  Blackmar  v. 
Sharp,  23  R.  I.  412,  50  Atl.  852. 

Federal. — Homans     v.    Coombe, 


3  Cranch,  C.  C.  365,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,654. 

^  Fletcher  v.  Kelly,  88  Iowa  475, 
476,  55  N.  W.  475,  21  L.  R.  A.  347n. 

s  Otley  V.  Haviland,  36  Miss.  19. 

9  Arkansas. — White  v.  ChafRn, 
32  Ark.  59. 

Florida. — Bond  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Masland,  45  Fla.  188,  34  So.  254. 

Indiana. — Krotz  v.  A.  R.  Beck 
Lumber  Co..  34  Ind.  App.  577,  73 
N.  E.  273. 

KentHckj-.  —  Caldwell  Institute 
V.  Young,  63  Ky.  582. 

Maryland. — Wells  v.  Canton  Co., 
3  Md.  234;  Jones  v.  Hancock,  1 
Md.  Ch.   187. 


395 


INCUMBRANCES DOWER TAXES. 


:§i52 


be  entitled  to  priority,  the  statute  relating-  to  the  perfecting- 
of  the  lien  must  have  been  complied  with.^*'  And  the  claim 
of  a  mechanic  must  be  of  such  a  character  that  it  comes 
within  the  statute  giving-  such  claims  priority.^^ 

§  152.  Priority — Dower,  curtesy,  taxes, — The  right  of 
dower  and  curtesy  is  superior  to  the  lien  of  a  mechanic,, 
for  materials  or  labor  placed  upon  the  property  under  contract 
with  the  person  owning  the  fee.^  But  in  order  to  have  this 
effect,  the  dower  or  curtesy  right,  although  in  inchoate  form, 
must  exist  at  the  time  the  lien  attaches ;  if  the  two  rights  are 
coeval  in  time,  the  mechanic's  lien  will  prevail.^  And  if  the 
owner  of  such  dower,  or  curtesy  right  shall  sell  the  same,  the 
purchaser  wall  get  it  free  from  the  lien  of  the  mechanic.^ 
Unless  there  is  a  stipulation  in  the  lease  that  the  landlord 
shall  have  a  lien  for  his  rent,^  or  for  any  advances  made  by  him,^ 


Mississippi. — Ivey  v.  White,  50 
Miss.  142. 

Missouri. — Dubois  v.  Wilson,  21 
Mo.  213. 

Xew  Jersey. — Tompkins  v.  Hor- 
ton,  25  N.  J.  Eq.  284. 

New  Tork^-Llvingston  v.  Miller, 
16  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  371. 

Wisconsin. — Hall  v.  Hinckley, 
32  Wis.   362. 

10  Curtis  V.  Broadwell,  66  Iowa 
662,  24  N.  W.  265;  Kendall  v.  Mc- 
Farland,  4  Ore.  292;  Hall  v. 
Hinckley,   32   Wis.   362. 

11  The  claim  for  money  ad- 
vanced to  the  owner  to  erect  the 
building  is  not  superior  to  the 
claim  of  the  mechanic.  Hickox  v. 
Greenwood,  94  111.  266. 

1  Illinois.— Gove  v.  Gather,  23 
111.  585,  76  Am.  Dec.  711;  Shaeffer 
V.  Weed,  8  111.  511. 

Indiana. — Bishop     v.     Boyle,   9 


Ind.  169,  68  Am.  Dec.   615;    Pifer 
V.  Ward,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.)   252. 

Virginia. — laege  v.  Bossieux,  15 
Graft.  (Va.)  83,  76  Am.  Dec.  189. 

2  Nazareth  Literary  &  Benevo- 
lent Inst.  V.  Lowe,  1  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)  257. 

3  A  wife,  her  husband  joining 
with  her,  may  mortgage  her  in- 
choate interest  in  her  husband's 
real  estate  to  secure  his  debt,  and 
such  mortgage  will  have  priority, 
as  to  such  inchoate  interest,  over 
the  liens  of  mechanics  or  other 
persons  for  the  erection  or  repair 
of  buildings  on  such  real  estate, 
at  the  husband's  request.  Mark  v. 
Murphy,  76  Ind.  535.  The  same 
rules  apply  to  curtesy  as  to  dow- 
er. Buser  v.  Shepard,  107  Ind. 
417,   8   N.   E.   280. 

4  Young  V.  West  Side  Hotel  Co., 
9  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  127,  2  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.  140. 


§  153] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


396 


his  lien  for  rent  is  not  superior  to  the  mechanic  furnishing 
material  or  making  improvements,^  the  mechanic  in  such 
cases  being  bound  to  inform  himself  of  the  conditions  of  the 
lease. '^  Taxes  are,  as  a  general  rule,  superior  and  entitled  to 
payment  prior  to  a  mechanic's  lien.^ 

§  153.  Priority — Debts  of  decedents,  buildings  and  improve- 
ments.— The  property  of  deceased  persons  are  liable 
for  the  debts  of  the  decedent  in  the  order  in  which 
they  become  a  lien  during  the  lifetime  of  such  dece- 
dent.^ A  person  subsequently  deceased  can  not  create  a 
lien  otherwise  than  as  the  law  provides  to  alTect  the  lien 
of  a  mechanic  after  his  death.^^  Some  statutes  draw  a  line 
between  buildings  and  improvements.^^   And  if  a  lien   is  al- 


5  Lenderking  v.  Rosenthal,  63 
Md.  28;  Mills  v.  Matthews,  7  Md. 
315. 

6  National  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bow- 
man, 77  Iowa  706,  42  N.  W.  557; 
Wood's  Appeal,  30  Pa.  St.  274. 

7  Mills  V.  Matthews,  7  Md.  315. 

8  Pennock  v.  Hoover,  5  Rawle 
(Pa.)  291. 

9  Boynton  v.  Westbrook,  74  Ga. 
68.  Superior  to  widow's  claim  for 
money  held  by  decedent  in  trust. 
Rietz  V.  Coyer,  83  111.  28. 

i«  Frost  V.  Ilsley,  54  Me.  345. 
Under  an  old  statute  it  was  held 
that  a  lien  could  not  be  perfected 
after  the  death  of  the  owner. 
Hoff's  Appeal,  102  Pa.  218.  Under 
the  Ohio  statute  where  the  owner 
dies  the  contractor  may  proceed 
to  finish  the  work,  and  in  such 
cases  his  lien  is  prior  to  the  liens 
of  creditors  of  heirs  and  devisees. 
Holbrook  v.  Ives,  44  Ohio  St.  516, 
9  N.  E.  228. 


11  "The  words  'building'  and 
'improvement'  are  not  synony- 
mous in  Code,  Ala.  §  3019,  declar- 
ing that  mechanic's  liens  as  to 
the  land  shall  have  priority  over 
all  other  liens,  mortgages,  or  in- 
cumbrances created  subsequently 
to  the  commencement  of  the  work 
on  the  building  or  improvement, 
it  shall  have  priority  over  all 
liens,  mortgages,  or  incum- 
brances, whether  existing  at  the 
time  of  the  commencement  of 
such  work  or  subsequently  cre- 
ated. The  term  'building'  refers 
to  an  independent  erection  upon 
the  land.  An  improvement  may 
be  an  independent  structure  or 
addition,  and  it  may  be  an 
addition  to  or  mere  betterment  of 
a  building  or  improvement  al- 
ready made,  and  not  included  in 
repairs  thereto."  Wimberly  v. 
Mayberry,  94  Ala.  240,  10  So.  157, 
14  L.  R.  A.  305;  Kennedy  v.  Had- 
dow,  19  Ont.  240. 


397 


DEBTS JUDGMENTS ATTACHMENTS. 


[§154 


lowed  on  the  building  separate  from  the  land,  a  prior  lien  on 
the  land  will  not  be  prior  to  the  lien  on  the  building/^  if 
the  building  can  be  removed  without  permanent  injury  to  the 
land.^^  In  the  case  of  a  leasehold  interest  the  mechanic's 
lien  covers  no  greater  right  than  the  lessee  has.^'* 

§  154.     Priority — Judgments,     attachments,     executions. — A 

judgment  lien  takes  effect  at  the  time  fixed  by  statute,  and 
if  the  right  to  a  mechanic's  lien  becomes  fixed  after  that 
time,  it  will  as  a  matter  of  course  be  subordinate  to  the  judg- 
ment.i  If  the  judgment  becomes  a  lien  during  the  period 
within  which  a  mechanic  can  perfect  his  right,  it  will  not 
be  superior  to  the  right  of  the  mechanic.^  And  if  a  mechanic 
does  not  pursue  the  remedy  allowed  him  by  the  law  relating 


12  McAllister  v.  Clopton,  51 
Miss.  257;  Ivey  v.  White,  50  Miss. 
142. 

13  Conrad  v.  Starr,  50  Iowa  470. 
Lien  on  additions,  etc.  Whitenack 
V.  Noe,  3  Stockt.  N.  J.  Eq.  321. 
If  the  building  is  erected  on  two 
lots,  one  of  which  cannot  be  made 
subject  to  the  lien,  it  will  attach 
to  the  other  lot  .  Crooker  v. 
Grant,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  182,  24  S. 
W.  689.  Where  the  holder  of  a 
mechanic's  lien,  which  is  a  prior 
lien  on  the  improvement  by  a 
subsequent  lien  on  the  land,  re- 
covers a  judgment  in  a  proceed- 
ing against  both  the  land,  and  the 
improvement,  he  loses  his  right 
of  priority.  State  ex  rel.  John  J. 
Ganahl  Lumber  Co.  v.  Drew,  43 
Mo.  App.  362. 

i4Gaskill  V.  Moore,  4  Cal.  233. 

1  Arkansas.  —  McCullough  v. 
Caldwell,  8  Ark.  231. 

Missouri. — Page  v.  Bettes,  17 
Mo.  App.  366. 


IV'ew  York. — Payne  v.  Wilson, 
74  N.  Y.  348. 

Ohio. — Choteau  v.  Thompson,  2 
Ohio  St.  114. 

Pennsylvania. — In  re  Vandeven- 
der,  2  Browne  (Pa.)  304;  Shap- 
nack  V.  Wilson,  1  Jour.  Juris. 
(Pa.)  93;  Boll  v.  Boll,  11  York 
(Pa.)  20.  Where  land  was  con- 
veyed by  a  deed  which  was  not  re- 
corded, and  was  subsequently  sold 
under  a  mechanic's  lien  against 
a  grantee,  a  creditor  of  the  orig- 
inal grantor,  who  secured  a  judg- 
ment after  the  sale  under  the  lien, 
could  not  enforce  his  judgment 
against  the  land  in  the  hands  of 
the  purchaser  at  the  lien  sale. 
Pace  v.  Moorman,  99  Va.  246,  37 
S.  E.  911,  3  Va.  Sup.  Ct.  Rep. 
145.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,   §  200. 

2  Hazard  Powder  Co.  v.  Loomis, 
2  Disney  (Ohio)  544;  In  re  Bit- 
ner's  Estate,  176  Pa.  90,  34  Atl. 
957;  Nolt  v.  Crow,  22  Pa.  Super  Ct. 


§154] 


OPEIL\TION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


398 


to  mechanics'  liens,  but  seeks  a  personal  judgment,  then  his 
judgment  will  rank  in  matter  of  priority,  the  same  as  other 
judgments  rendered  on  a  personal  claim.^  Of  course  the 
person  against  whom  the  lien  is  sought  to  be  enforced  must 
have  had  an  interest  in  the  property  at  the  time  at  which 
it  is  claimed  the  lien  attached  to  the  property.'*  So  attach- 
ments and  executions  against  the  owner  must  be  lev- 
ied on  the  property  before  the  right  to  a  mechan- 
ic's lien  attaches,  in  order  to  be  superior  thereto.^ 
Here,  as  elsewhere,  however,  a  mechanic  or  material 
man  must  have  brought  himself  by  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  materials  furnished  and  the  perfection  of 
his  lien,  within  the  statute,  or  he  will  have  no  priority.^  If 
he  does  not  do  so,  the  mere  fact  that  he  has  furnished  ma- 
terial or  given  labor,  will  give  him  no  right  to  a  prior  lien 
over  other  creditors  on  the  fund  arising  from  the  sale  of  the 
property."  If  a  debt  is  due  from  a  contractor  or  other  person 
standing  in  that  relation,  and  the  statute  does  not  require  the 
owner  to  hold  the  same  after  notice  from  the  subcontractor 
or  otherwise,  an  attachment  of  the  same  by  a  general  creditor 
will  be  prior  to  a  claim  the  subcontractor  might  have  had 
thereon.^     The  notice  usually  determines  the  subcontractor's 


113;  In  re  Vandevender,  2  Browne, 
(Pa.)  304. 

3  Love  V.  Cox,  68  Ga.  269 ;  Mor- 
ris County  Bank  v.  Rockaway 
Mfg.  Co.,  16  N.  J.  Eq.  150.  Judg- 
ment roll  and  execution  as  evi- 
dence. Johnson  v.  Puritan  Min- 
ing &  Milling  Co.,  19  Mont.  30,  47 
Pac.  337.  As  to  what  is  after  ac- 
quired. Judgment,  §  — .  Pace  v. 
Moorman,  99  Va.  246,  37  S.  E.  911, 
3  Va.  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  145. 

4  Seltzer  v.  Robbins,  181  Pa.  St. 
451,  37  Atl.  567. 

5  Young  V.  Stoutz,  74  Ala.  574; 
McCullough    V.    Caldwell,    5    Ark. 


237;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Redman, 
57  Me.  405.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  201. 

^  Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Des 
^Moines  Driving  Park,  97  Iowa  25, 
65  N.  W.  1017.  If  the  statute 
gives  no  lien  there  can  be  none, 
although  the  forms  are  gone 
through  with.  Greenough  v.  Nich- 
ols, 30  Vt.  768. 

"  Doubted  whether  equitable 
principles  will  apply.  Quimby  v. 
Sloan,  2  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  594; 
Alexander  v.  Hemrich,  4  Wash.  St. 
727,  31  Pac.  21. 

8  Cahoon  v.  Levy,  6  Cal.  295,  65 


399 


PRIORITY MORTGAGES. 


[§155 


right  to  priority.^  It  seems  that  mere  knowledge  alone  that 
there  are  mechanics'  liens  will  not  affect  the  right  of  priority. 
It  must  be  such  knowledge  that  the  law  requires  a  duty 
therefrom,  and  that  it  would  be  inequitable  and  a  fraud  upon 
the  rights  of  others  to  allow  the  claimants  priority. ^^ 

§  155.  Priority — Mortgages. — The  matter  of  priority  be- 
tween mortgages  and  mechanic's  liens  is  very  similar  to  that 
of  conveyances/  and  liens  and  other  incumbrances. ^  As  a 
general  rule,  all  mortage  liens  existing  before  the  right  to  a 
mechanic's  lien  comes  into  existence — having  been  perfected 
as  the  law  requires — are  prior  to  the  mechanic's  lien  and 
mortgages  subsequent  thereto  yield  priority  to  the  lien  of  a 
mechanic.^  The  mere  right  to  the  mechanic's  lien,  however^ 
does  not  give  such  priority  unless  it  has  been  perfected  in 
the  way  the  statute  provides.  The  mere  fact  that  the  materials 
had  been  furnished  is  not  sufficient  to  induce  a  court  of 
equity  to  give  priority  where  the  statute  has  not  been  fol- 
lowed.^ But  while  these  questions  of  priority  are  determined 
largely  by  statutory  provisions,  wherever  possible  equitable 
principles  are  applied,  thus  a  deed,  absolute  on  its  face,  if  in 
reality  a  mortgage  will  be  so  considered  and  to  the  extent  of 


Am.  Dec.  515.  See  §§  56,  66.  Three 
hours  after.  Bell  v.  Burke,  89  Ga. 
772,  15  S.  E.  705. 

9  Alabama. — Conboy  v.  Fricke, 
50  Ala.  414. 

California. — Long  Beach  School 
Dist.  V.  Lutge,  129  Cal.  409,  62 
Pac.  36;  Cahoon  v.  Levy,  6  Cal. 
295,  65  Am.  Dec.  515.  Taking  in- 
sufficient security  does  not  affect 
mechanic's  claim  or  right  to  a 
lien,  etc.  Norton's  Assignee  v. 
Hope  Milling,  Mining  &  Lumber 
Co.,  101  Ky.  223,  40  S.  W.  688. 

Nebraska. — Jones  v.  Church  of 
the  Holy  Trinity,  15  Neb.  81,  17  N. 
W.  362. 


Oliio. — Lane  v.  Thomas,  25  Ohio 
Cir.  Ct.  303. 

Wisconsin. — Dorestan  v.  Krieg, 
66  Wis.  604,  29  N.  W.  576. 

1"  Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Des 
IMoines  Driving  Park,  97  Iowa  25, 
65  N.  W.  1017. 

1  See   §§  149,  150. 

2  See  §§  151,  152,  153. 

3  Erwin  v.  Acker,  126  Ind.  133, 
25  N.  E.  888.  See  §§  156,  157,  158, 
159. 

4  Fidelity  Ins.  &  Safe  Deposit 
Co.  V.  Shenandoah  Iron  Co.,  42 
Fed.  372.     See  §2. 


155] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


400 


the  mortgage  debt,  will  be  prior  to  a  subsequent  lien.^  And 
likewise  if  a  prior  mortgage  is  renewed  after  the  lien  has  at- 
tached, it  being  the  same  debt,  the  renewal  will  not  cause  it  to 
lose  its  priority.*^  It  would  be  ditterent,  however,  if  the  old 
debt  was  lifted  and  the  new  one  made,  although  the  new 
included  the  oldJ  So  the  priority  is  lost  by  an  interval,  even 
if  made  by  consent  of  mortgagor  and  mortgagee,  between  the 
lifting  of  the  old  debt  and  the  making  of  the  new  one.^  The 
fact  that  the  value  of  the  mortgage  security  has  been  en- 
hanced by  the  labor  or  material  of  a  mechanic,  will  not  affect 
the  priority  of  the  mortgage.^  There  might  be  an  exception 
to  the  latter  statement  in  cases  where  the  statute  preserves 
the  lien  on  the  building,  separate  and  apart  from  the  land  upon 
which  it  is  located. ^'^  The  fact  that  the  money  secured  by 
the  mortgage  was  gotten  under  the  express  directions  of  the 
owner  that  it  was  to  be  used  in  improving  the  property,  will 


5  Hudson  V.  Barham,  101  Va.  63, 
43  S.  E.  189;  Edler  v.  Clark,  51 
Fed.  117. 

6  Title  Guarantee  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Wrenn,  35  Ore.  62,  56  Pac.  271. 

"  Easton  v.  Brown,  170  Mass. 
311,  49  N.  E.  433. 

s  Frost  V.  Clark,  82  Iowa  298, 
48  N.  W.  82;  Chicago  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Anderson,  51  Neb.  159,  70  N. 
W.  919.  See  Hoskins  v.  Carter, 
66  Iowa  638,  24  N.  W.  249  as  to 
priority  where  lien  is  filed  after 
time  limit.  Under  Comp.  L. 
N.  D.,  §  5476,  providing  that  the 
claimant  of  a  mechanic's  lien  may 
file  a  statement  of  his  account 
within  90  days  after  completion 
of  the  work,  and  that  a  failure 
to  file  the  same  within  that 
time  shall  not  defeat  the  lien  "ex- 
cept against  purchasers  or  in- 
cumbrancers, in  good  faith  with- 
out notice,  whose   rights   accrued 


after  the  90  days,  and  before  any 
claim  for  the  lien  was  filed."  A 
lien,  the  account  and  claim  for 
which  were  filed  more  than  90 
days  after  completion  of  the  work 
is  superior  to  a  mortgage  made 
and  filed  within  such  90  days. 
Wisconsin  Trust  Co.  v.  Robinson 
&  Cary  Co.,  68  Fed.  778,  15  C.  C. 
A.  66S,  32  U.  S.  App.  435. 

9  :\Ionticello  Bank  v.  Sweet,  64 
Ark.  502,  43  S.  W.  500;  Carriger 
V.  Mackey,  15  Ind.  App.  392,  44  N. 
E.  266:  Thorpe  Block  Saving  & 
Loan  Assn.  v.  James,  13  Ind.  App. 
522,  41  N.  E.  978. 

10  Christian-Craft  Grocery  Co. 
V.  Kling,  121  Ala.  292,  25  So.  629; 
Wimberly  v.  Mayberry,  94  Ala. 
240,  10  So.  157;  Thorpe  Block 
Saving  &  Loan  Assn.  v.  James,  13 
Ind.  App.  522,  41  N.  E.  978;  Hol- 
land V.  Cunliff,  96  Mo.  App.  67,  69 
S.  W.  737. 


401 


PRIORITY MORTGAGES. 


:§i55 


not  disturb  prior  mortgage  liens. ^^  Likewise  the  fact  that  the 
mortgagor  fraudulently  represented  to  the  mortgagee,  that 
there  were  no  mechanic's  liens  against  the  property,  will  not 
affect  the  lien  of  a  mechanic  if  such  lien  actually  existed  at 
that  time. 12  Again,  applying  equity  principles,  if  a  mortgage 
is  made  bona  fide,^^  it  is  held  not  to  lose  its  priority  merely 
because  of  an  omission  of  some  technical  matter  in  its  execu- 
tion.i^  And  on  like  principles  a  mechanic's  lien  will  not  lose 
its  priority  by  reason  of  some  technical  deviation  in  the  mat- 
ter of  execution. 1-5  Where  a  chattel  mortgage  is  given  on 
personal  property  which  afterwards  becomes  a  fixture  and 
a  part  of  the  real  estate,  a  mechanic's  lien  attaching  to  the 
real  estate  will  have  priority  over  the  chattel  mortgage. i*^  An 
heir  takes  property  from  an  ancestor,  subject  to  whatever 
liens  could  have  been  asserted  against  the  ancestor  at  the 
time  of  his  death. ^^  Where  a  general  scheme  was  formed  to 
issue  bonds  and  out  of  the  proceeds  pay  the  mechanics,  it 
was  held  that  the  mechanics  would  not  lose  their  priority 
unless  it  was  shown  that  they  had  waived  their  rights. ^^  In 
foreclosure  proceedings,  only  such  persons  will  be  precluded 


1 1  Henry  &  Coatsworth  Co.  v. 
Halter,  58  Neb.  685,  79  N.  W.  616. 

12  The  validity  of  liens  does  not 
depend  upon  the  motives  w^hich 
suggested  their  being  filed.  Gor- 
don V.  Torrey,  2  McCart  N.  J.  Eq. 
112,  82  Am.  Dec.  273. 

13  Where  the  land  is  not  in  ad- 
verse possession.  Boggs  v.  Mc- 
Ewen,  69  Neb.  705,  96  N.  W.  666. 
A  fictitious  mortgage  can  have  no 
priority  over  a  mechanic's  lien. 
Thomas  v.  Davis,  3  Phila.  (Pa.) 
171. 

14  Payne    v.    Wilson,    74    N.    Y. 


348;  Sill  v.  Wright,  21  Pittsb.  Leg. 
J.  (Pa.)   (O.  S.)  190. 

15  Blanshard  v.  Schwartz,  7 
Okla.   23,  54   Pac.  303. 

16  Currier  v.  Cummings,  40  N.  J. 
Eq.  145,  3  Atl.  174.  The  lien  of  a 
mechanic  upon  a  machine  placed 
in  a  manufactory,  subject  to  a 
mortgage  executed  before  the  ma- 
chine was  begun  to  be  set  up,  is 
subsequent,  and  must  yield  to  the 
mortgage  lien. 

17  Green  v.  Brown,  146  Ind.  1, 
44  N.  E.  805. 

IS  Montgomery  v.  Allen,  107  Ky. 
298,  21  Ky.  L.  1001,  53  S.  W.  813. 


26 


§  156] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


402 


from    thereafter    asserting    their    rights    as    have    been    made 
parties. i'-* 

§  156.  Priority — Mortgages  given  before  making  contract 
or  commencement  of  work. — A\niere  the  statute  makes  pro- 
vision for  recording  the  contract  it  has  been  held  that  a 
mortgage  made  before  the  contract  is  recorded  will  be  prior 
to  the  mechanic's  lien  thereimder.^  Where  the  statutes  fix  the 
time  when  the  lien  right  shall  attach,  as  when  the  building  is 
commenced,-  or  the  materials  are  furnished,^  or  the  claim  is 
filed,'*  or  at  the  time  of  "laying  in  of  stock,"  that  fact  will 
fix  the  date  which  will  determine  the  question  of  priority  be- 
tween the  mortgage  and  the  mechanic's  lien,^  and  a  mortgage 
given   before   such   date,   will   be   prior   to  a   lien   thereafter.^ 


19  Gaines  v.  Childers,  3S  Ore. 
200,  63  Pac.  487.  In  embarrassed 
circumstances.  Jenckes  v. 

Jenckes,  145  Ind.  624,  44  N.  E. 
624. 

Period  of  ascertainment  of  yal- 
ne. — Where  on  a  reference  in  a 
mechanic's  lien  proceeding,  it  is 
found  as  between  a  lienholder 
and  a  prior  mortgagee,  that  the 
selling  value  of  the  property  has 
been  increased  by  the  work  done 
and  materials  supplied  to  an 
amount  equal  to  the  claim  of  the 
lienholder,  who  under  s.  s.  3  of  §  5 
of  the  Mechanics'  Lien  Act,  is  de- 
clared entitled  on  account  of  such 
increased  value  to  priority  over 
the  mortgage,  and  pending  the 
proceedings  the  premises  are  de- 
stroyed by  fire,  the  claim  of  the 
lienholder  is  at  end  so  far  as  the 
interests  of  the  mortgagee  are  af- 
fected by  it.  Patrick  v.  Wal- 
bourne,  27  Ont.  221. 


1  :\Iorse  V.  Dole,  73  Me.  351. 

2  McClain  v.  Hutton,  131  Cal. 
132,  61  Pac.  273;  Lee  v.  Hoyt,  101 
Iowa  101,  70  N.  W.  95.  See  §  130 
as  to  what  constitutes  commence- 
ment. 

3  See  §  130.  Zehner  v.  Johnston, 
22  Ind.  App.  452,  53  N.  E.  1080; 
Grand  Island  Banking  Co.  v. 
Koehler,  57  Neb.  649,  78  N.  W.  265; 
Cushwa  v.  Improvement,  Loan  & 
Building  Assn.,  45  W.  Va.  490,  32 
S.  E.  259. 

Materials  are  not  furnished,  un- 
til delivered  on  the  ground.  If 
ready  and  stored  somewhere  else, 
until  the  building  is  ready  for 
them,  the  date  of  their  delivery 
will  be  the  time  when  the  right 
to  a  lien  attaches.  Bradley  v. 
Stafford,  48  Hun  (N.  Y.)  620,  1 
N.  Y.  Supp.  138. 

4  See  §  100.  Hinckley  &  Egery 
Iron  Co.  V.  James,  51  Vt.  240. 

5  Knox  V.  Starks,  4  Minn.  20. 

6  Ferguson      v.    Miller,    6      Cal. 


403  MORTGAGE  BEFORE  COMMENCEMENT  OF  WORK.  [§  157 

And  this  would  be  true  even  though  the  labor  of  a  mechanic  added 
largely  to  the  security  of  the  mortgaged  Under  some  statutes 
especially  where  the  improvements  can  be  removed  without 
injury  to  the  land,^  the  mechanic  may  be  protected  as  to  the 
increased  value  as  against  a  prior  mortgage.^  Mechanics  deal- 
ing with  persons  are  bound  to  inform  themselves  as  to  what 
interests  the  contracting  owner  may  have  in  the  land  upon 
which  the  structure  is  to  be  placed,  and  cannot  complain  of  a 
mortgage  which  is  properly  recorded. ^*^  And  as  a  general 
rule  it  may  be  said  that  the  question  of  the  priority  of  a 
mortgage  rests  upon  the  fact  that  it  w'as  filed  before  the  me- 
chanic's lien  right  has  become  such  as  entitles  it  to  be  classed 
as  a  lien  on  the  property. ^^  Furthermore  the  parties  are 
bound  by  the  statements  contained  in  the  lien  or  mortgage  as 
to  the  time  when  the  same  was  executed  or  the  lien  attached. ^^ 

§  157.  Priority — Mortgage  given  after  making  of  contract 
or  commencement  of  work. — If  the  statute  makes  the  lien  at- 
tach at  the  time  the  contract  is  entered  into,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  a  mortgage  given  thereafter  will  be  subject  to  the  lien 
of  a  mechanic.^    Where,  however,  the  contract  is  subsequently 

402;      Martsolf     v.     Barnwell,   15  9  Fidelity  Loan  &  Trust  Co.  v. 

Kan.  612;    Leib  v.  Bean,  1  Ashm.  Dennis,  93  Va.  504,  25  S.  E.  546. 

(Pa.)    207;    Wright      v.    Vaughan  lo  Interstate  Building    &    Loan 

(Va.),  33  S.  E.  595.  Foreclosed  be-  Assn.  v.  Ayers,  177  111.  9,  52  N.  E. 

fore    materials    furnished.      Shep-  342;    Holmes  v.  Ferguson,  1   Ore. 

ardson   v.   Johnson,   60   Iowa   239,  220;   Pride  v.  Viles,  35  Tenn.  125; 

14  N.  W.  302.    Mere  contemplation  Reidv.  Bank     of     Tennessee,  33 

of    making    improvements    before  Tenn.  262. 

mortgage    is    executed    does      not  nOrtonville   v.   Geer,   93   Minn, 

make    lien    prior      to      mortgage.  501,   101   N.  W.   963;      Jessup     v. 

Sullivan  v.  Texas  Briquette  &  Coal  Stone,  13  Wis.  521. 

Co.,  94  Tex.  541,  63  S.  W.  307.  12  Hartford    Building    &     Loan 

7  Equitable  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Slye,  Assn.  v.  Goldreyer,  71  Conn.  95, 
45  Iowa  615;  Dugan  v.  Scott,  37  41  Atl.  650;  Landau  v.  Cottrill, 
Mo.  App.   663.  159  Mo.  308,  60  S.  W.  64. 

8  O'Brien  v.  Pettis,  42  Iowa  293.  1  Illinois.— Paddock  v.  Stout, 
See   §  162.  121  111.  571,  13  N.  E.  182. 


157] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


404 


changed,  the  lien  will  only  be  prior  as  to  the  amount  re- 
quired under  the  original  contract.^  Where  a  prior  unrecorded 
mortgage  is  released,  and  a  new  one  taken,  a  mechanic's  lien 
under  a  contract  made  prior  to  the  date  of  the  new  mortgage 
will  take  priority  over  the  mortgage.^  A  person  taking  a 
mortgage  on  real  estate   is  bound  by  the  appearance  of  the 


Maine. — Farnham  v.  Richard- 
son, 91  Me.  559,  40  Atl.  553;  Morse 
V.  Dole,  73  Me.  351. 

Massachusetts.  —  McDowell  v. 
Rockwood,  182  Mass.  150,  65  N.  E. 
65;  Carew  v.  Stubbs,  155  Mass. 
549,  30  N.  E.  219;  Batchelder  v. 
Rand,  117  Mass.  176;  Dunklee  v. 
Crane,  103  Mass.  470.  Work  was 
under  way  also.  General  Fire 
Extinguisher  Co.  v.  Schwartz 
Bros.  Commission  Co.,  165  Mo. 
171,   65    S.   W.  318. 

Existing  contract.  —  Where  a 
property  owner  stated  to  a  lum- 
ber company  that  he  desired  to 
purchase  lumber  for  a  house  on 
certain  premises,  and  the  com- 
pany agreed  to  sell  such  lumber 
when  he  should  desire  the  same, 
to  be  paid  for  at  market  prices, 
made  an  estimate  as  to  the  prob- 
able cost  of  the  lumber,  and  un- 
der this  agreement  delivered 
enough  lumber  to  complete  the 
lower  floor,  sills,  and  studding 
three  days  before  the  owner  of 
the  property  executed  a  mortgage 
thereon,  there  was  an  existing 
contract  for  the  purchase  of  lunl- 
ber,  establishing  a  mechanic's 
lien  superior  to  the  mortgage, 
providing  that  a  mechanic's  lien 
shall  be  superior  to  a  mortgage 
when  the  contract  under  which 
the  lien  is  claimed  is  entered  into 


prior  to  the  execution  of  the 
mortgage.  Taylor  v.  Springfield 
Lumber  Co.,  180  Mass.  3,  61  N.  E. 
217.  See  Ellenwood  v.  Burgess, 
144  Mass.  534,  11  N.  E.  755,  where 
although  there  was  fraud,  the 
lien  was  not  prior  because  the 
contract  was  in  force  when  mort- 
gage was  given. 

2  Osborne  v.  Barnes,  179  Mass. 
597,  61  N.  E.  276;  Collum  v.  Penn- 
sylvania Paint  &  Ochre  Co.,  185 
Pa.  St.  411,  39  Atl.  1009;  Martin 
V.  Texas  Briquette  &  Coal  Co., 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.)  77  S.  W.  651. 
Provision  in  a  contract  for  fur- 
nishing the  labor  and  material 
mentioned  in  Schedule  F.,  for  a 
building,  that  any  lien  "filed  un- 
der this  contract"  for  labor  and 
material  mentioned  in  such  sched- 
ule shall  be  subject  to  a  mort- 
gage, does  not  affect  a  lien  for  la- 
bor and  material  not  included 
therein.  Sankey  v.  Burton,  196 
Pa.  St.  504,  46  Atl.  850;  Bissell  v. 
Lewis,  56  Iowa  231,  9  N.  W.  177. 

3  Under  the  Massachusetts  Stat- 
ute, the  mortgage  must  be  made 
and  recorded  before  the  contract 
is  made  in  order  to  be  prior  to 
the  lien.  Dixon  v.  Hyndman,  177 
Mass.   506,   59  N.  E.   73. 

Lien  on  building.  —  Under  the 
express  provision  of  Mills'  Ann. 
St.  Colo.   §§    2884,   2885,   deeds  of 


405 


MORTGAGE  AFTER  COMMENCEMENT  OF  WORK. 


[§157 


same,  and  if  the  indications  are  such  that  an  ordinarily  pru- 
dent man  could  ascertain  from  the  same  by  the  exercise  of 
ordinary  care  that  the  right  to  a  mechanic's  lien  has  attached, 
the  mortgage  taken  by  him  will  be  subject  to  the  right  of  the 
mechanic*  Of  course  in  order  for  the  mechanic  to  have  his 
priority,  he  must  have  proceeded  according  to  law  in  perfect- 
ing his  lien,^  and  if  he  does  so  his  lien  will  have  priority  for 
all  materials  furnished  and  labor  done,  whether  before  or  after 
execution  of  the  mortgage.*^  The  fact  that  a  mortgage  loan 
was  negotiated  before  a  lien  right  attached,  will  not  give  the 


trust  recorded  before  the  execu- 
tion of  a  building  contract  have 
priority  of  lien  on  the  land  over 
mechanics'  liens,  but  are  subordin- 
ated, in  the  absence  of  special  cir- 
cumstances, to  the  mechanics' 
liens  on  the  building.  Joralman 
V.  McPhee,  31  Colo.  26,  71  Pac. 
419. 

4  Illinois.  —  Interstate  Building 
&  Loan  Assn.  v.  Ayers,  71  111.  App. 
529. 

Massachnsetts.  —  Batchelder  v. 
Hutchinson,  161  Mass.  462,  37  N. 
E.  452. 

Minnesota. — Miller  v.  Stoddard, 
54  Minn.  487. 

^'^ebraska.  —  Goodwin  v.  Cun- 
ningham, 54  Neb.  11,  74  N.  W. 
315;  Henry  v.  Coatsworth  Co.  v. 
Fisherdick,  37  Neb.  207. 

North  Dakota. — Turner  v.  St. 
John.  8  N.  Dak.  245,  78  N.  W.  340. 

Rhode  Island.  —  McDonald  v. 
Kelly,  14  R.  I.  335.  Process  of 
erection.  Cheshire  Provident 
Inst.  V.  Stone,  52  N.  H.  365.  Com- 
mencement of  building.  Hahn's 
Appeal,  39  Pa.  409.  Digging  cel- 
lar, commencement.  Bassett  v. 
Swarts,  17  R.  I.  215,  21  Atl.  352. 


5  Iowa. — Iowa  Mortgage  Co.  v. 
Shanquest,  70  Iowa  124,  29  N.  W. 
820;  Lamb  v.  Hanneman,  40  Iowa 
41. 

Montana. — Johnson  v.  Puritan 
Mining  &  Milling  Co.,  19  Mont. 
30,  47  Pac.  337;  Murray  v.  Swan- 
son,  18  Mont.  533,  46  Pac.  441. 

Texas. — Schultze  v.  Alamo  Ice 
&  Brewing  Co.,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
236.  21  S.  W.  160. 

G  Micliigan. — Kay  v.  Townsley, 
113  Mich.  281,  71  N.  W.  490. 

Minnesota. — Ortonville  v.  Geer, 
93  Minn.  501,  101  N.  W.  963;  Glass 
V.  Freeberg,  50  Minn.  386,  52  N. 
W.  900,  16  L.  R.  A.  335;  Milner 
V.  Norris,  13  Minn.  455. 

Nebraska. — Chapman  v.  Brew- 
er, 43  Neb.  890,  62  N.  W.  320,  47 
Am.  St.  779;  Henry  &  Coatsworth 
Co.  v.  Fisherdick,  37  Neb.  207,  55 
N.  W.  643. 

Ohio. — Woodman  v.  Richardson, 
1  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  191,  1  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.  104. 

Oregon.  —  Harrisburg  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Washburn,  29  Ore.  150,  44 
Pac.   390. 

Utah.— Fields  v.  Daisy  Gold 
Min.  Co.  25  Utah  76,  69  Pac.  528. 


158] 


OPERxMION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


406 


mortgage  priority  if  the  mortgage  was  executed  after  the  lien 
right  had  attached."  Neither  the  fact  that  the  money  ob- 
tained on  the  mortgage  was  used  to  pay  a  previous  mortgage,^ 
or  was  used  in  paying  for  materials  or  work  on  the  building 
will  give  it  priority.'' 

§  158.  Priority — Mortgage  after  commencement  of  work,  or 
before  material  furnished. — As  before  stated,  if  the  work 
is  commenced/  or  the  building  begun,^  or  the  furnishing  of 
materials  begun/'^  or  the  contract  made, — where  that  fixes  the 


Federal — Courtney  v.  Insurance 
Co.  of  North  America,  49  Fed. 
309,  1  C.  C.  A.  249,  4  U.  S.  App. 
140. 

Continuous  contract.  —  Where 
the  erection  of  a  building  is  one 
continuous  undertaking,  with 
nothing  to  suggest  an  abandon- 
ment of  the  work  at  any  time,  a 
mortgage  or  other  incumbrance  or 
distinct  lien,  originating  subse- 
quent to  the  commencement  of 
the  work  upon  the  ground,  or  the 
furnishing  of  materials  at  the 
same  place,  whether  by  one  gen- 
eral contractor  or  by  independent 
contractors,  must  be  postponed 
and  subordinated  to  the  lien 
claims  of  all  who  have  contrib- 
uted to  the  completion  of  the 
structure  by  their  labor  or  ma- 
terials. Under  some  statutes  the 
mortgagor  is  only  bound  by  ex- 
press or  constructive  notice  as 
by  filing  claim,  etc.  Gere  v.  Cush- 
ing,  68  Ky.  304. 

7  Nixon  V.  Cydon  Lodge,  .56  Kan. 
298,  43  Pac.  236. 

8  Batchelder  v.  Hutchinson,  161 
Mass.  462,  37  N.  E.  452. 

9  Sullivan  v.  Texas  Briquette  & 
Coal   Co.,   94    Tex.    541,   60   S.   W. 


330.  Where  defendant  advanced 
money  to  the  owner  of  a  building, 
and  took  a  mortgage  thereon 
while  a  contractor  was  erecting 
it,  he  was  affected  with  notice  of 
the  contractor's  lien,  and  the  con- 
tractor was  not  estopped  by  tak- 
ing from  the  owner  notes  for  the 
amount  thereof  secured  by  mort- 
gage on  the  building.  Farmers  & 
Mechanics'  Nat.  Bank  v.  Taylor, 
91   Tex.    78,   40      S.   W.   876,      966. 

1  See  §  18.  Merrigan  v.  English, 
9  Mont.  113,  22  Pac.  454,  5  L.  R. 
A.  837;  Davis  v.  Bilsland,  18  Wall 
(U.  S.)  659,  21  L.  ed.  969;  In  re 
Hoyt,  3  Biss.  (U.  S.)  436,  12  Fed. 
Cas.  6,805. 

2  Arkansas. — See  §  119.  Apper- 
son  V.  Farrell,  56  Ark.  640,  20  S. 
W.  514. 

Iowa. — Bissell  v.  Lewis,  56  Iowa 
231,  9  N.  W.  177;  Neilson  v.  Iowa 
Eastern  R.  Co.,  44  Iowa  71. 

Kansas. — Keystone  Iron  Works 
Co.  v.  Douglass  Sugar  Co.,  55  Kan. 
195,  40  Pac.  273;  Thomas  v.  Mow- 
ers, 27  Kan.  265. 

3  Milner  v.  Norris,  13  Minn. 
455;  Keene  Guaranty  Sav.  Bank 
V.  Lawrence,  32  Wash.  572,  73  Pac. 
680. 


407  MORTGAGE  AFTER   WORK  DONE.  [§158 

date,^  even  though  the  materials  are  not  furnished,  nor  the 
work  begun,  for  which  a  lien  is  claimed  until  after  the  exe- 
cution and  recording  of  the  mortgage, — the  lien  of  the  me- 
chanic will  still  have  its  priority.^  And  this  is  true  although 
a  great  hardship  is  imposed  on  the  mortgagee  as  the  language 
of  the  statute  must  be  followed,  and  parties  are  bound  to  know 
the  law.^  Where  the  work  is  not  a  continuous  piece  of  work, 
each  part  may  be  considered  as  being  performed  under  a  new 
contract,  and  will  be  governed  by  that  factJ  If  the  old  con- 
tract is  at  an  end  and  a  new  one  created,  that  fact  will  control.^ 
Under  some  statutes,  it  is  held  that  each  claimant  is  gov- 
erned by  the  time  that  he  commenced  his  particular  part  of 
the  work  and  that  as  to  him,  the  time  when  the  general  work 
was  commenced  will  not  avail  as  determining  his  priority.® 
Under  other  statutes  the  delivery  of  materials  determines  the 
material  man's  date  of  priority  and  under  still  other  statutes 
the  priority  dates  from  the  time  that  a  notice  is  given. ^'^  The 
claimant  must  follow  the  statutory  requirement  or  he  will 
lose  his  right  of  preference. ^^  Under  a  statute  that  made  the 
lien  date  from  the  "commencement  of  the  building"  the  lien 
for  fixtures  put  in  the  building  after  the  mortgage  was  given 
was  held  to  be  prior  to  such  mortgage. ^2     js^  slight  change 

4  Sprague  v.  McDougall,  172  10  Keene  Guaranty  Sav.  Bank 
Mass.  553,  52  N.  E.  1077.  v.  Lawrence,  32  Wash.  572,  73  Pac. 

5  Crowell  V.  Gilmore,  13  Cal.  680;  Rawlings  v.  New  Memphis 
54.  Gaslight  Co.,  105  Tenn.  268,  60  S. 

G  Haxtun   Steam   Heater   Co.   v.  W.  206,  80  Am.  St.  880. 

Gordon,  2  N.  Dak.   246,  50  N.  W.  n  Smedley  v.  Conaway,  5  Clark 

708,   33   Am.   St.    776.  (Pa.)     417;    Kendall    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

f  Batchelder     v.        Hutchinson,  Rundle,    78    Wis.    150,    47    N.    W. 

161  Mass.   462,  37  N.   E.  452.  364. 

8  Tritch  V.  Norton,  10  Colo.  337,  12  Keystone  Iron  Works  Co.  v. 
15  Pac.  680;  In  re  Thomas'  Es-  Douglass  Sugar  Co.,  55  Kan.  195, 
tate,  76  Pa.  St.  30.  40  Pac.  273;    Flint,  &c.,  Mfg.  Co. 

9  Welch  V.  Porter,  63  Ala.  225;  v.  Douglass  Sugar  Co.,  54  Kan. 
Huttig  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Denny  455,  38  Pac.  566;  Vilas  v.  McDon- 
Hotel  Co.,  6  Wash.  122,  32  Pac.  ough  Mfg.  Co.,  91  Wis.  607,  65  N. 
1073. 


159] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


408 


in  the  original  design,  as  from  heating  stoves  to  a  steam- 
heating  apparatus,  will  not  afifect  the  matter  of  priority.^^ 
The  mechanic  must  affirmatively  show  the  facts  entitling  him 
to  priority,  before  the  same  will  be  allowed.^"*  Subcontractors 
stand  in  the  same  position  as  the  principal  contractor  in  rela- 
tion to  the  priority  of  their  lien  over  the  mortgage  except 
where  courts  have  held  that  the  lien  dates  from  the  time 
that  the  person  actually  performing  the  labor  of  furnishing 
the  material,  furnishes  the  same.^^ 

§  159.     Priority — Mortgages  given  before  lien  attaches. — Of 

course  if  the  mortgage  is  given  before  the  time  that  the  law 
recognizes  that  the  lien  right  has  attached  to  the  property, 
it  is  prior  to  the  lien  right  of  the  mechanic. ^  A  technical 
error,  such  as  giving  the  direction  East  when  it  should  have 


W.   488,  51   Am.   St.  925,   30   L.  R. 
A.   778. 

13  Haxtun  Steam  Heater  Co.  v. 
Gordon,  2  N.  Dak.  246,  50  N.  W. 
708,  33  Am.  St.  776. 

i4Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Ohio 
Dec.  (Re.)  481,  21  Wkly.  L.  Bull. 
(Ohio)  275;  Safe  Deposit  &  Trust 
Co.  V.  Columbia  Iron  &  Steel  Co., 
176  Pa.  St.  536,  35  Atl.  229;  Bas- 
tieu  V.  Barras,  10  N.  Dak.  29,  84  • 
N.  W.  559.  One  claiming  a  me- 
chanic's lien  must  allege  and 
show  affirmatively  that  "stock 
was  laid,"  or  work  commenced, 
before  the  conflicting  lien  (in  this 
case  by  mortgage)  attached. 
Farmers'  Bank  v.  Winslow, 
3  Minn.  86  [43],  74  Am.  Dec. 
740.  And  parol  evidence  has  been 
held  inadmissible  to  vary  date 
shown  on  lien.  Reynolds  v.  Mil- 
ler,  177   Pa.    St.   168,   35   Atl.   702. 


The  purchaser  at  judicial  sale  is 
not  bound  to  look  further  than  the 
record.  Wheelock  v.  Harding,  4 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  21.  Purchasers  at 
Judicial  sales  only  succeed  to  the 
interest  that  was  sold;  persons 
not  made  parties  are  not  affected. 
Western  Iron  Works  v.  Montana 
Pulp  &  Paper  Co.,  30  Mont.  550, 
77  Pac.  413. 

i^Succession  of  Erard,  6  Rob. 
(La.)  333;  Hydraulic  Press  Brick 
Co.  v.  Bormans,  19  Mo.  App.  664; 
Dunavant  v.  Caldwell,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
122  N.  Car.  999,  29  S.  E.  837. 

1  Indiana,  — Troth  v.  Hunt,  8 
Blackf.  (Ind.)  580. 

Iowa. — Grosbeck  v.  Ferguson,  43 
Iowa  532. 

Mississippi. — Hoover  v.  Wheeler, 
23   Miss.    314. 

Manitoba. — Robock  v.  Peters,  13 
Manitoba  124;  Kievell  v.  Murray, 
2  Manitoba  209. 


409 


MORTGAGE    AFTER    LIEN    ATTACHES. 


[§159 


been  West,  will  not  defeat  the  priority,  of  the  mortgage,^ 
nor  will  the  fact  that  the  mortgage  is  given  by  the  legal 
owner  through  the  request  of  the  equitable  owner.^  Con- 
versely, if  the  lien  right  has  attached  before  mortgage  is  given, 
it  is  prior  thereto.'*  But  as  stated  in  the  previous  section, 
equitable  principles  control,  and  if  a  mortgage  were  given 
to  remedy  a  defect  in  a  former  one,  the  mortgage  will  retain 
its  priority.*^  And  where  a  mortgage  is  given  after  a  notice  of 
a  lien  is  filed  as  required  by  statute,"  or  proceedings  have 
been  instituted  to  establish  a  lien,  the  mortgage  will  be  sub- 
ject to  such  lien  right.^  But  where  the  statutes  require  a 
mechanic  to  file  a  notice  and  such  filing  gives  him  his  right  to 
a  lien,  a  mortgage  given  before  this  step  is  taken  will  be  prior 
to  the  lien.^  The  date  of  filing  the  lien  is  conclusive  as  to  all 
the  parties. ^^ 


2Grand  Opera  House  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Guire,  14  Mont.  558,  37  Pac.  607. 

3Lunt  V.  Stephens,  75  111.  507; 
Holmes  v.  Hutchins,  38  Neb.  601, 
57  N.  W.  514. 

'^Loni'siana. — Succession  of  Le- 
nel,  34  La.  Ann.  868. 

Massachusetts.  —  Carew  v. 
Stubbs,  155  Mass.  549,  30  N.  E. 
219. 

Jfew  Hamiishire.  —  Graton  & 
Knight  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Woodworth- 
Mason  Co.,  69  N.  H.  177,  38  Atl. 
790. 

Xorth  Carolina,  —  Cheesborough 
V.  Asheville  Sanatorium,  134  N. 
Car.  245,  46  S.  E.  494. 

Washing'ton.  —  Powell  v.  Nolan, 
27  Wash.  318,  67  Pac.  712,  69  Pac. 
389. 

Federal. — Atkins  v.  Volmer,  21 
Fed.   697. 

c  Payne  v.  Wilson,  74  N.  Y.  348, 
See  §  155. 


"Account  is  notice  to  the  world. 
Spence  v.  Etter,  8  Ark.  69. 

SBuntyn  v.  Shippers'  Compress 
Co..  63  Miss.  94. 

findiana, — Green  v.  Green,  16 
Ind.  253,  79  Am.  Dec.  428. 

Louisiana. — IMarmillon  v.  Arch- 
inard,  24  La.  Ann.  610. 

New  Jersey. — ^Vandyne  v.  Van- 
ness,  1  Halst.  Ch.  (N.  J.  Eq.) 
485. 

New  York. — Munger  v.  Curtis, 
42  Hun.  (N.  Y.)  465.  Under  for- 
mer laws  the  lien  came  into  ex- 
istence on  the  filing  of  a  petition. 
Mulrey  v.  Barrow,  11  Allen 
(Mass.)  152. 

loReading  v.  Hopson,  90  Pa.  St. 
494. 

Fraudulent  Mortgage. — Where  a 
mortgage  executed  to  the  wife  of 
a  contractor  by  the  owners  of  the 
building,  in  payment  of  the 
amount   due   the    contractor,    and 


§  160] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


410 


§  160.  Priority — Mortgage — Future  advances. — A  mort- 
gage given  to  secure  future  advances  to  be  paid  as  the  build- 
ing progresses  is  a  prior  lien  for  claims  for  material  used 
in  the  construction  of  the  building  for  the  full  amount  advanced.^ 
Of  course  the  mortgage  must  be  made  bona  fide,^  and  given-^  and 
recorded  before  the  lien  right  has  attached.^     It  is  immaterial 


therefore  fraudulent  as  to  the 
creditors  of  the  contractor,  is  not 
assigned  by  the  wife  to  a  creditor 
of  the  contractor  until  after  me- 
chanics' liens  have  been  filed 
against  the  building  by  creditors 
of  the  contractor,  the  mechanics' 
liens  have  preference  over  the 
mortgage.  Mahoney  v.  Mc  Walt- 
ers, 3  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  248,  38  N. 
Y.  Supp.  256. 

1  Kansas. — Thomas  v.  Hoge,  58 
Kan.  166,  48  Pac.  844. 

Jfew  Jersey. — Reed  v.  Rochford, 
62  N.  J.  Eq.  186,  50  Atl.  70;  Cen- 
tral Trust  Co.  V.  Bartlett,  57  N.  J. 
L.  206,  30  Atl.  583;  Central  Trust 
Co.  v.  Continental  Iron  Works,  51 
N.  J.  Eq.  605,  28  Atl.  595,  40  Am. 
St.  539;  Barnett  v.  Griffith,  27  N. 
J.  Eq.  201;  Taylor  v.  La  Bar,  25  N. 
J.  Eq.  222. 

^eyv  York. — Lipman  v.  Jackson, 
Architectural  Iron-Works,  128  N. 
Y.  58,  27  N.  E.  975. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Moroney's  Ap- 
peal, 24   Pa.   St.   372. 

Wisconsin. — Wisconsin  Planing 
Mill  Co.  V.  Shuda,  72  Wis.  277,  39 
N.  W.   558. 

Manitoba. — Robock  v.  Peters, 
13  Manitoba  124. 

Ontario. — Cook  v.  Belshaw,  23 
Ont.  545. 

Futnre  Advances. — It  is  a  com- 
com  knowledge  that  savings 
banks,  trust  companies,  and  other 


lenders  of  money  frequently  take 
mortgages  in  a  similar  way  to 
that  in  which  these  were  given. 
That  is,  where  an  owner  of  land 
desires  to  improve  the  same  by 
erecting  buildings  thereon,  they 
take  a  mortgage  for  a  given 
amount,  a  part  of  which  they  ad- 
vance at  once,  and  then,  under 
an  agreement  made  with  the  mort- 
gagor at  the  time  of  the  execu- 
tion of  the  mortgage,  they  ad- 
vance the  balance  in  installments 
as  the  work  progresses,  thus  en- 
abling the  owner  of  the  land  to 
increase  the  value  of  his  prop- 
erty and  at  the  same  time  secur- 
ing themselves  for  the  loan.  And 
where  under  such  an  agreement 
it  is  obligatory  and  not  merely 
optional  on  the  part  of  the  lender 
to  make  such  future  advances, 
they  stand  on  the  same  footing 
as  to  subsequent  incumbrancers 
as  though  such  advances  were 
made  at  the  time  the  mortgage 
was  given.  Blackmar  v.  Sharp, 
23  R.  I.   412,  50  Atl.   852. 

2Brooks  V.  Lester,  36  Md.  65. 

SHewson-Herzog  Supply  Co.   v. 
Cook,  52  Minn.  534,  54  N.  W.  751. 

^Maryland. — Brooks    v.    Lester, 
36  Md.  65. 

Xew  Jersey. — Young  v.   Haight, 
69  N.  J.  L.  453,  55  Atl.  100. 

New   York. — Hirshfield   v.   Lud- 
wig,  69  Hun  (N.  Y.)   554,  24  N.  Y. 


411 


MORTGAGE FUTURE  ADVANCES. 


[§160 


whether  the  advanced  consideration  is  money  or  material.^ 
In  some  jurisdictions  the  mortgagee  cannot  claim  the  benefit 
of  his  security  to  the  detriment  of  a  claimant  for  option- 
al advances  made  after  actual  notice  of  the  lien.*^ 
Elsewhere  it  is  essential  that  the  mortgage  on  its  face  does 
not  show  that  it  is  to  be  paid  in  future  installments/  and 
also  that  the  mortgage  was  given  for  the  purpose  of  raising 
money  that  was  actually  used  in  the  building.^  Still  others 
hold  that  the  future  payments  on  the  mortgage  must  be  made 
without  notice  of  the  lien  claims.*^  If  the  mortgagee  volun- 
tarily pays  the  taxes  on  the  mortgaged  premises,  unless  the 


Supp.  634;  Stuyvesant  v.  Brown- 
ing, 1  Jones  &  Sp.  (33  N.  Y.  Su- 
per.)   203. 

Wasliingtoii. — Home  Savings  & 
Loan  Assn.  v.  Burton,  20  Wash. 
688,  56  Pac.  940.  In  order  for  a 
lien  to  be  prior  to  a  mortgage,  it 
must  be  registered  before  the 
mortgage.  Reinhart  v.  Shutt,  15 
Ont.   325. 

5Richards  v.  Waldron,  20  D.  C. 
585. 

GFinlayson  v.  Crooks,  47  Minn. 
74,  49  N.  W.  398,  645. 

7The  mortgage  was  for  a  single, 
fixed  amount,  and  contained  no 
provision  for  future  advances. 
Now,  if  it  be  true  that  equity  will 
look  behind  the  face  of  the  mort- 
gage (and  upon  this  question  we 
express  no  opinion),  it  will  also, 
upon  the  same  principle,  date  the 
mechanics'  liens  from  the  time  of 
furnishing  material  and  doing 
work.  If  the  one  can  claim  a  lien 
only  from  the  time  of  paying  over 
his  money,  surely  the  other  can 
claim  his  only  from  the  time  of 
supplying  material  and  doing 
work.     At   such    times   only   does 


either  mortgagee  or  mechanic 
part  with,  or  mortgagor  and  lot- 
owner  receive,  value.  Martsolf  v. 
Barnwell,  15  Kan.  612. 

sin  re  Matthews,  109  Fed.   603. 

9A  lien  for  materials  supplied 
as  against  a  mortgage  has  pri- 
ority over  the  mortgage  only  to 
the  extent  of  the  materials  placed 
on  the  ground  before  the  mort- 
gage money  was  advanced.  The 
first  mortgagee  having  applied  his 
last  advance  in  payment  of  the 
purchase  money  of  the  lots  to  the 
unpaid  vendor  who  then  conveyed 
the  land  in  fee  to  the  defendant 
owner,  and  having  thus  secured 
the  title  to  the  property,  claimed 
to  be  entitled  to  be  subrogated  to 
the  position  of  the  original  vendor 
in  respect  of  such  purchase 
money;  but,  having  had  actual 
notice  of  one  of  the  liens  and 
constructive  notice  of  the  other 
before  making  this  payment,  it 
was  held  that  he  could  not  have 
priority  over  either  lienholder  for 
such  advance.  Robock  v.  Peters, 
13  Manitoba  124. 


i6r 


OPEIL^TION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


412 


Statute  so  provides,  this  will  not  give  him  a  superior  lien  for 
taxes  paid.^^ 

^161.  Priority — Mortgage — Record  of — Estoppel — After  ac- 
quired property. — The  general  rule  is,  that  a  mortgage  dates 
its  priority  from  the  time  it  is  filed  for  record.^  However,  if 
there  is  no  statutory  obligation  to  have  the  mortgage  re- 
corded, then  that  fact  will  have  no  bearing  on  its  priority.^ 
The  fact  that  the  mortgagor  did  not  have  the  full  legal  title 
will  not  afifect  its  priority  as  to  the  interest  he  really  had  in 
the  property.3  Some  courts  have  held  that  a  mortgage  can  not 
be  properly  recorded  until  after  it  is   delivered,'*  and  others 


i"Bissell  V.  Lewis,  56  Iowa  231, 
9  N.  W.  177;  Devereux  v.  Taft,  20 
S.  Car.  555. 

1  Colorado. — Small  v.  Foley,  8 
Colo.  App.  435,  47  Pac.  64. 

Illiuois. — Thielman  v.  Carr,  75 
111.  385. 

Indiana. — Jenckes  v.  Jenckes, 
145  Ind.  624,  44  N.  E.  632. 

Iowa.— Bartlett  v.  Bilger,  92 
Iowa  732,  61  N.  W.  233. 

New  Jersey. — Morris  County 
Bank  v.  Rockaway  Mfg.  Co.,  14 
N.   J.  Eq.  189. 

Pennsylyania,  —  Mitchell  v. 
Evans.  2  Browne   (Pa.)   329. 

Wisconsin. — Mathwig  v.  Mann, 
96  Wis.  213,  71  N.  W.  105,  65  Am. 
St.   47. 

United  States. — Toledo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Hamilton,  134  U.  S.  296,  10 
Sup.  Ct.  546,  33  L.  ed.  905;  Moran 
V.  Schnugg,  7  Ben.  (U.  S.)  399,  17 
Fed.  Cas.  9,786.  Evidence.  Cahn 
V.  Romandorf  (Neb.),  93  N.  W. 
411. 

Lien  Between  Mortgages.  — 
Where  mechanics'  liens  attach  to 
property  between  the  recording  of 
two     mortgages,     the     former     of 


which  is  made  subject  to  the  lat- 
ter, the  last  mortgage  will  be  a 
first  lien  to  the  amount  of  the 
first  mortgage,  the  mechanic's  lien 
a  second  lien,  the  first  mortgage 
a  third  lien,  and  the  balance  due 
on  the  last  mortgage  a  fourth 
lien,  on  the  land.  Thorpe  Block 
Saving,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  James,  13 
Ind.   App.  522,  41  N.  E.   978. 

-California. — Root  v.  Bryant,  57 
Cal.  48;  Rose  v.  Munie,  4  Cal.  173. 

Minnesota. — Miller  v.  Stoddard, 
54  Minn.  486,  56  N.  W.  131,  50 
Minn.  272,  52  N.  W.  895,  16  L.  R.  A. 
288;  Noerenberg  v.  Johnson,  51 
Minn.  75,  52  N.  W.  1069;  Malm- 
gren  v.  Phinney,  50  Minn.  457, 
52  N.  W.  915,  18  L.  R.  A.  753. 

Missouri. — Missouri  Fire  Clay 
Works  V.  Ellison,  30  Mo.  App. 
67;  Fletcher  v.  Kelly,  88  Iowa 
475,  55  N.  W.  474,  21  L.  R.  A. 
347n. 

SToledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hamilton, 
134  U.  S.  296,  10  Sup.  Ct.  546,  33 
L.   ed.   905. 

^A  mortgage,  recorded  on  May 
13,  1870,  was  not  delivered  until 
June   7th   following,  which  latter 


413 


MORTGAGE AFTER  ACQUIRED  PROPERTY. 


[§161 


that  it  will  be  valid  if  delivered  after  it  is  recorded.^  Actual 
knowledge,  however,  has  been  held  as  binding  as  the  construc- 
tive notice  given  by  record  of  a  mortgage,  and  that  if  a  me- 
chanic knows  that  the  mortgage  has  actually  been  given  he 
will  be  bound  thereby.*'  A  holder  of  a  mechanic's  lien  can  not 
claim  priority  over  a  mortgage  which  he  was  instrumental 
in  having  made,  and  which  would  work  a  fraud  on  the  holder 
of  the  same.'^  If  the  mortgagee  induces  the  material  man 
to  furnish  the  material  by  accepting  orders  he  afterwards  re- 
fuses to  pay,  this  will  be  such  a  fraud  that  the  mortgagee 
can  not  hold  a  priority  on  his  mortgage.^  And  it  has  been  held 
where  a  mechanic's  lien  was  entitled  to  priority  over  a  credi- 
tor with  notice,  that  if  the  mortgagee  knew  that  the  building 
was  in  progress  he  was  a  creditor  with   notice  and  not  en- 


date  was  held  to  be  the  date  of 
its  registry.  Mutual  Benefit  Life 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Rowand,  26  N.  J.  Eq. 
389. 

sjudges  evenly  divided  in  this 
case.  Jacobus  v.  Mutal  Ben.  Life 
Ins.  Co.,  27  N.  J.  Eq.  604. 

ejoralmon  v.  McPhee,  31  Colo. 
26,  71  Pac.  419;  Harris  v.  Gardner 
(Ky.)  68  S.  W.  8,  24  Ky.  L.  103; 
Bradford  v.  Anderson,  60  Neb.  368, 
83  N.  W.  173. 

■i^Ponder  v.  Safety  Bldg.  &  Loan 
Co.  (Ky.)  59  S.  W.  858,  22  Ky.  L. 
1074;  Home  Savings  &  Loan  Assn. 
V.  Burton,  20  Wash.  688,  56  Pac. 
940.  Essentials  of  estoppel.  Se- 
curity Mortgage  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Caruthers,  32  S.  W.  837,  11  Tex. 
Civ.  App.   430. 

Knowledge  of  intended  nse. — 
Where  the  building  was  intended 
as  a  homestead,  and  the  holders 
of  mechanics'  liens  possessed 
knowledge  sufficient  to  put  them 
on  inquiry  as  to  the  intended  use 


of  the  property,  their  claims  were 
not  entitled  to  priority  in  the  ap- 
propriation of  a  balance  due  on 
the  original  contract  which  the 
owner  had  deposited  in  court,  as 
against  a  claim  under  the  original 
contract  by  an  assignee  who  had 
completed  the  building  in  accord- 
ance with  its  terms.  Haldeman 
v.  McDonald  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  58 
S.  W.  1040. 

sjenckes  v.  Jenckes,  145  Ind. 
624,  44  N.  E.  632;  Southern  Build- 
ing &  Loan  Assn.  v.  Bean  (Tex. 
Civ.  App),  49  S.  W.  910.  A  mort- 
gagee who  encourages  the  im- 
provement of  the  mortgaged  prop- 
erty by  an  agreement  to  subordin- 
ate his  lien  to  the  cost  thereof  is, 
as  to  persons  furnishing  labor  and 
material  for  use  thereon  upon  the 
faith  of  his  promise,  a  promoter 
of  such  improvement,  and  their 
liens  for  labor  and  material  are 
entitled  to  priority  over  his  mort- 
gage. 


161] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


414 


titled  to  priority.^  As  a  matter  of  course  if  the  mortgagee 
agrees  that  the  work  shall  be  done,  and  that  it  may  have  pri- 
ority, he  will  be  estopped  to  allege  the  contrary.^"  Mere 
knowledge  will  not  work  an  estoppel. ^^  And  if  the  statute 
requires  something  to  be  done,  such  as  the  giving  of  notice, 
and  it  is  not  done,  a  mortgage  will  not  lose  its  priority. ^^  \ 
mortgage  lien  attaches  to  after  acquired  property,  and  is  sub- 
ject to  all  liens  existing  or  attaching  thereon  at  the  time  of 
the  acquisition  of  such  property. ^-^  As  a  matter  of  course  a 
mortgage  that  is  on  the  premises  when  the  contracting  owner 
purchases  the  same  will  have  priority  over  a  subsequent  lien 
of  a  mechanic  made  under  a  contract  with  the  purchaser.^* 

§  162.  Priority — Mortgage — Improvements. — As  a  general 
rule,  it  may  be  said  that  improvements  become  a  part  of  the 
realty  when  placed  thereon,  and  the  increased  value  given 
thereby,  if  any,  inures  to  the  benefit  of  an  existing  mortgage.^ 
This  rule  is  always  applied  if  the  money  procured  from  the 
mortgage  lien  is  used  in  the  improvements.^  The  fact  that 
the  mechanic  was  induced  to  believe  by  the  owner  that  he 


^Bond  Lumber  Co.  v.  Masland, 
45  Fla.  188,  34  So.  254. 

losoule   V.   Dawes,   14  Cal.    247. 

iiCapital  Lumbering  Co.  v. 
Ryan,  34  Ore.  73,  54  Pac.  1093; 
Pride  v.  Viles,  3  Sneed  (Tenn.) 
125. 

i2Fuquay  v.  Stickney,  41  Cal. 
583;  Hanchey  v.  Hurley,  129  Ala. 
306,    30   So.    742. 

i3Harrls  v.  Youngstown  Bridge 
Co.,  90  Fed.  322,  33  C.  C.  A.  69; 
Reed  v.  Ginsburg,  64  Ohio  St.  11, 
59  N.  E.  738;  Botsford  v.  New  Ha- 
ven, etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Conn.  454. 

i^Morris  County  Bank  v.  Rocka- 
way  Mfg.  Co.,  14  N.  J.  Eq.  189. 

1  Delaware.  —  Knowles  Loom 
Works  V.  Vacher  (Del.  Super.),  65 
Atl.  26. 


Iowa. — Kiene  v.  Hodge,  90  Iowa 
212,  77  N.  W.  717;  Curtis  v.  Broad- 
well,  66  Iowa  662,  24  N.  W.  265; 
German  Bank  v.  Schloth,  59  Iowa 
316,  13  N.  W.  314. 

Missouri. — Reed  v.  Lambertson, 
53  Mo.  App.  76. 

]Vew  Jersey. — Reed  v.  Rochford, 
62  N.  J.  Eq.  186,  50  A.tl.  70;  New- 
ark Lime  &  Cement  Co.  v.  Mor- 
rison, 15  N.  J.  Eq.   133. 

Oregon. — Inverarity  v.  Stowell, 
10  Ore.  261. 

Texas.  —  Martin  v.  Texas 
Briquette  &  Coal  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  77  S.  W.  651. 

2Chauncey  v.  Dyke  Bros.,  119 
Fed.  1,  55  C.  C.  A.  579;  Wroten  v. 
Armat,  31  Gratt.   (Va.)   228. 


415 


PRIORITY MORTGAGE IMPROVEMENTS. 


[§162 


should  be  paid  out  of  money  gotten  from  the  mortgage,  will 
not  make  the  mortgage  inferior  to  the  mechanic's  lien.^ 
Where  however,  the  statute  makes  the  mechanic's  lien  a  lien 
on  the  improvement,  and  not  alone  on  the  "lot  of  land"  upon 
which  it  is  located,  then  the  mechanic's  lien  will  be  a  prior 
lien  on  the  improvements,  the  existing  mortgage  lien  remain- 
ing a  prior  one  on  the  land.^  Especially  is  this  true  if  the  im- 
provements can  be  removed  without  affecting  the  value  of 
the  property  as  to  the  pre-existing  mortgage.^  If  the  im- 
provements are  such  as  are  known  as  trade  fixtures,  erected 
by  a  tenant  for  his  convenience,  the  general  rule  is  that  the 
mechanics'  lien  will  attach  thereto  and  it  will  be  prior  to  a 


3ChafEee  v.  Schestedt  (Neb.)  96 
N.  W.  161;  Patrick  Land  Co.  v. 
Leavenworth,  42  Neb.  715,  60  N. 
W.  954. 

^Alabama. — Wimberly  v.  May- 
berry,  94  Ala.  240,  10  So.  157,  14 
L.  R.  A.  305n. 

Indiana.  —  Building  &  Loan 
Assn.  V.  Coburn,  150  Ind.  684,  50 
N.  E.  885;  Carriger  v.  Mackey,  15 
Ind.  App.  392,  44  N.  E.  266. 

Kansas. — Getto  v.  Friend,  46 
Kan.  24,  26  Pac.  473. 

Mississippi. — Otley  v.  Haviland, 
36  Miss.  19. 

Missouri. — Crandall  v.  Cooper, 
62  Mo.  478;  McAdow  v.  Sturte- 
vant,  41  Mo.  App.  220;  Hall  v.  St. 
Louis  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Mo.  App.  33. 

Sonth  Daliota,  —  Laird-Norton 
Co.  V.  Herker,  6  S.  Dak.  509,  62  N. 
W.  104.  The  word  "Land"  as  used 
in  Mechanic's  Lien  Law,  Illinois 
20,  providing  that,  where  a  mort- 
gage of  land  to  which  a  me- 
chanic's lien  attaches  is  the  prior 
lien,  it  shall  retain  its  priority  to 
the  extent  of  the  value  of  the  land 
at  the  time  the  contract  is  made 


with  the  mechanic  or  material 
man,  means  the  land  with  such 
improvements  as  were  on  it  at  the 
execution  of  the  mortgage.  Cros- 
key  V.  Northwestern  Mfg.  Co.,  48 
111.  481. 

c>Tower  v.  Moore,  104  Iowa  345, 
73  N.  W.  823;  Fischer  v.  Anslyn, 
30  Mo.  App.  316;  Johnson  v.  Puri- 
tan Mining  Co.,  19  Mont.  30,  47 
Pac.  337;  Laird-Norton  Co.  v. 
Herker.  6  S.  Dak.  509,  62  N.  W. 
104.  Chattel  mortgage  on  prop- 
erty slightly  attached.  First  Nat. 
Bank  v.  Elmore,  52  Iowa  541,  3  N. 
"VV.  547.  The  priority  of  lien  on 
a  building  given  by  Comp.  Laws 
to  one  who  furnishes  material,  as 
against  an  existing  incumbrance 
on  the  land,  does  not  exist,  unless 
the  building  or  improvement  was 
wholly  erected  subsequently  to 
the  attaching  of  the  lien  of  the 
incumbrance,  and  can  be  sold  and 
removed  from  the  land,  without 
unlawfully  invading  the  rights  of 
the  earlier  incumbrancer.  James 
River  Lumber  Co.  v.  Danner,  3  N. 
Dak.  470,  57  N.  W.  343. 


162] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


416 


mortgage  on  the  real  estate."  A  building  resting  on  posts 
does  not  from  this  fact  alone  become  a  movable  improvement.^ 
Some  courts  have  held  that  if  a  new  building  is  erected  in 
the  place  of  one  burned,  a  lien  for  erecting  the  same  will  be 
prior  to  a  pre-existing  mortgage.^  Unless  the  statute  makes 
such  an  exception,  however,  this  will  not  be  true.  If  the  mort- 
gage requires  improvements  to  be  made,  as  a  matter  of  course 
a  lien  for  constructing  the  same  will  be  prior  to  the  mort- 
gaged*^ However,  if  the  person  has  no  title  or  is  not  an 
owner  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute,  improvements  put 
on  by  him  can  not  give  a  mechanic's  lien  prior  claim  over  a 
mortgage  afterwards  given  for  purchase  money. ^^  Some 
courts  have  held  that  it  is  sufficient  to  give  a  lien  priority 
if  the  mortgagee  knew  of  the  contract  for  the  improvement,^^ 
or  consents  to  it.^^  But  as  a  general  rule  it  is  not  obligatory 
on  the  part  of  the  mortgagee  to  see  that  his  money  is  used  in 
the  improvement  if  his  mortgage  is  such  as  would  give  a  me- 
chanic proper  notice  before  the  improvements  are  begun. ^"* 
The  mechanic  asserting  his  lien  must  show  that  he  is  entitled 
to   priority   before   the    same   can   be   allowed. ^^      Where   the 


■^Heidelbach  v.  Jacobi,  28  N.  J. 
Eq.  544.  See  Leaseholds,  §  141; 
Incumbrances,  §  151;  Fixtures,  § 
12. 

sRowIand  v.  Sworts,  17  N.  Y. 
Supp.  399,  63  Hun  (N.  Y.)  625 
(without  opinion). 

9Schulenburg  v.  Hayden,  146 
Mo.  583,  48  S.  W.  472;  People's 
Building,  etc.,  Assn.  v.  Clark  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  33  S.  W.  881. 

lOHillhouse  v.  Pratt,  74  Conn. 
113,  49  Atl.  905;  Allfree  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Henry,  96  Wis.  327,  71  N.  W. 
370. 

11  Birmingham  Bldg.  &  Loan 
Assn.  V.  Boggs,  116  Ala.  587,  22  So. 
852,  67  Am.  St.  147. 


i-Humbolt  Bldg.  Assn.  v.  Vol- 
mering  (Ky.),  47  S.  W.  1084,  20 
Ky.  L.  899.  Knowledge  of  an  agent 
sufficient.  In  re  Wagner,  110  Fed. 
93L 

13  Baker  v.  Robbins,  119  N.  Car. 
289,  25  S.  E.  876;  Allfree  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Henry,  96  Wis.  370,  71  N.  W. 
370. 

i^Anglo-American  Savings,  etc. 
Assn.  V.  Campbell,  13  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  581,  43  L.  R.  A.  622. 

i5Davis  V.  Alvord,  94  U.  S.  545, 
24  L.  ed.  283.  "^Tiere  houses  are 
built  on  wrong  lot,  not  entitled 
to  priority.  Smith  v.  Barnes, 
38  Minn.  240,  36  N.  W.  346. 


417 


PRIORITY VENDOR  S   LIEN. 


[§163 


statute   allows   the   mortgagor  to   collect   attorney   fees,   it   is 
held  that  the  lien  is  prior  to  such  attorney  fees.^^ 

§  163.  Priority — Vendor's  lien. — A  vendor's  lien  is  a  secret 
lien,  and  as  it  is  the  policy  of  the  law  that  all  liens  shall  be 
open,  and  no  one  misled  thereby,  such  liens  are  not  favored 
over  claims  of  persons  who  have  incurred  claims  antagonistic 
thereto,  exercising  reasonable  caution.^  It  rests  upon  a 
strong  equity  and  is  generally  recognized.^  So  it  has  been 
held  where  the  contracting  owner  has  only  an  equitable  right 
and  title  thereon,  the  owmer  retaining  the  legal  title  until  the 
conditions  for  a  conveyance  are  satisfied  his  lien  or  claim  is 
prior  to  that  of  a  mechanic,  who  has  performed  w^ork  on  the 
property  under  the  contracting  owner.^  This  has  been  held 
true   even  thoug:h  the  vendor  knew  and  consented  that  im- 


16  Garrett  v.  Adams  (Tenn.  Cli. 
App.),  39  S.  W.  730. 

lAnsley  v.  Pasahro,  22  Neb.  662, 
35  N.  W.  885.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens  §  199. 

spomeroys  Eq.  Vol.  3,  p.  251, 
gives  the  following  states  as  re- 
cognizing the  doctrine:  Alabama, 
Arkansas,  California,  Colorado, 
Dakota,  District  of  Columbia, 
Florida,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa, 
Kentucky,  Maryland,  Michigan, 
Minnesota,  Mississippi,  Missouri, 
New  Jersey,  New  York,  Ohio,  Ore- 
gon, Tennessee,  Texas,  Wisconsin; 
and  the  following  as  having  re- 
jected it,  either  by  decision  of 
courts  or  statutes:  Connecticut, 
Delaware,  Georgia,  Kansas,  Maine, 
Massachusetts,  Nebraska,  New 
Hampshire,  North  Carolina,  Penn- 
sylvania, Rhode  Island,  South 
Carolina,  Vermont,  Virginia,  "West 
Virginia.  (See  Pomeroys  Equity, 
Vol.  3,  p.  253.) 


sioiva.— Millard  v.  West,  50 
Iowa  616. 

Kentuckj-. — Northern  Bank  of 
Kentucky  v.  Deckebach,  83  Ky. 
154;  Orr  v.  Batterton,  14  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)  100;  Grainger  v.  Old  Ken- 
tucky Paper  Co.,  105  Ky.  683,  49 
S.  W.  477,  20  Ky.  L.  1491;  Cooley 
V.  Black,  105  Ky.  267,  48  S.  W. 
1075,   20  Ky.   L.   1181. 

Mississippi. — English  v.  Foote, 
8   Sm.  &  M.    (Miss.)    444. 

PennsylTania. — Fordham's  Ap- 
peal, 78  Pa.  St.  120;  Stoner  v. 
Neff,  50  Pa.  St.  258;  Kline  v. 
Lewis,  1  Ashm.   (Pa.)    31. 

Tennessee. — Ragon  v.  Howard, 
97  Tenn.  334,  37  S.  W.  136;  Gil- 
lespie V.  Bradford,  7  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 
168,  27  Am.  Dec.  494. 

Wasliineton. — Northwest  Bridge 
Co.  V.  Tacoma  Shipbuilding  Co., 
36  Wash.  333,  78  Pac.  996;  St. 
Paul,  etc..  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bolton, 
5  Wash,  763,  32  Pac.  787. 


27 


163] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


418 


provements  should  be  made.'*  However,  and  this  seems  to  be 
a  more  equitable  doctrine,  some  courts  have  held  that  if  the 
legal  owner  suffers  the  improvements  to  be  made  without 
warning  the  mechanic  of  the  contracting  owner's  title,  that 
a  mechanics'  lien  will  be  superior  to  the  legal  owner's  lien.^ 
If  the  contract  between  the  vendor  and  the  vendee  required 
the  erection  of  the  building,  then  the  mechanic's  lien  will  be 
^iven  priority.*^  If  the  improvement  is  made  by  a  tenant, 
like  other  improvements,  if  removed,  the  lien  of  a  mechanic  is 
superior."  Where  a  lien  is  on  improvements  separate  from  the 
land   a   mechanic's   lien    will   be    prior   to   a   purchase   money 


•iKuschel  V.  Hunter  (Cal.)  50 
Pac.  397;  West  v.  Reeves,  53  Neb. 
472,  73  N.  W.  935;  Charleston 
Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Brockmyer, 
18  W.  Va.  586. 

5Leonard  v.  Cook  (N.  J.  Eq.), 
20   Atl.    855. 

^Illinois. — Henderson  v.  Con- 
nelly, 123  HI.  98,  14  N.  E.  1,  5  Am. 
St.   490. 

Iowa. — Janes  v.  Osborne,  108 
Iowa  409,  79  N.  W.  143;  Jameson 
V.  Gile,  98  Iowa  490,  67  N.  W. 
396;  Hill  v.  Gill,  40  Minn.  441,  42 
N.  W.  294. 

>'ebraska, — Bohn  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Kountze,  30  Neb.  719,  46  N.  W. 
1123,  12  L.  R.  A.  33n. 

Tennessee. — Lee  v.  Gibson,  104 
Tenn.  698,  58  S.  W.  330. 

'Logan  V.  Taylor,  20  Iowa  297; 
Walbridge  v.  Barrett,  21  Ohio  C. 
C.  522,  11  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  634; 
Phelps  V.  Edwards,  52  Tex.  371. 
W.  purchased  of  R.,  and  paid  for, 
a  town  lot;  the  title  being  held 
by  J.,  the  wife  of  R.  It  was  agreed 
that  R.  should  sell  the  lot  for  W., 
and  that  the  title  should  be  con- 
veyed by  R.  and  J.  to  the  pur- 
chaser when  sold.     R.  contracted 


with  K.  and  B.  to  sell  the  lot  to 
them,  took  their  notes  for  the  pur- 
chase money,  and  gave  them  pos- 
session in  April,  1855.  Me- 
chanics employed  by  K.  and  B. 
proceeded  to  erect  a  building  on 
the  lot,  and  respectively  perfected 
their  liens  under  the  statute.  R. 
and  J.  conveyed  the  lot  by  deed 
of  October  5th  (recorded  Decem- 
ber 22d)  to  K.  and  B.,  who,  Oc- 
tober 13th,  executed  a  mortgage 
left  for  record  November  1st  to 
secure  the  notes  for  the  purchase 
money.  It  did  not  appear  that  the 
mechanics  had  any  notice  as  to 
the  title.  The  notes  and  mort- 
gages were  afterwards  trans- 
ferred to  W.,  who  brought  suit 
against  K.  and  B.,  making  the  me- 
chanics parties.  Held,  that  the 
vendor's  lien  arose  at  the  time  of 
sale  by  contract  and  giving  pos- 
session, and  that  the  lien  was  not 
impaired  either  by  the  deed  or 
mortgage.  The  mechanics'  liens 
at  their  inception  were  liens  only 
upon  the  estate  or  interest  of 
K.  and  B.,  and  necessarily  subject 
to  any  prior  liens  upon  the  same 


419  PRIORITY — PURCHASE  MONEY  MORTGAGE.  [§  164 

mortgage  on  the  land,^  or  a  vendor's  lien  so  far  as  the  im- 
provement may  be  concerned,  but  not  upon  the  land  itself.^ 
If  fixtures  become  detached  and  are  sold,  it  is  >held  that  a 
mechanic's  claim  to  the  fund  is  superior  to  that  of  the  vendor 
on  the  premises. i*^  Where  the  statutes  permit  the  lien  to  be 
separate  upon  the  improvements,  if  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
parties  that  the  improvements  shall  lose  their  identity  and 
become  part  of  the  real  estate,  then  the  vendor's  lien  will 
become  superior.!^ 

§  164.  Priority — Purchase  money  mortgage. — A  purchase 
money  mortgage  rests  upon  the  same  principles  as  a  vendor's 
lien  and  in  addition  thereto  it  has  the  advantage  of  not  being  a 
secret  lien  and  it  has  been  held  that  where  a  mortgage  is  given 
simultaneously  with  a  deed  for  the  property  to  secure  the  un- 
paid purchase  price  that  such  mortgage  is  prior  to  the  lien  of 
a  mechanic  for  labor  or  materials  furnished  under  a  contract 
with  a  vendee  in  possession  prior  to  the  execution  of  the  mort- 
gage.^    And  this  is  true  even  though  the  deed  and  mortgage 

lot.     Neil  V.   Kinney,  11   Ohio  St.  n Watson  v.   Markham,  33  Tex. 

58.  Civ.  App.  476,  77  S.  W.  660. 

8  See  §  162.  ilowa. — Thorpe  v.    Durbon,    45 

9  Illinois. — Wing    v.    Carr,    86      Iowa,  192. 

111.  347.  Kansas. — Missouri  Valley  Lum- 

loTva. — Stockwell    v.    Carpenter,  ber   Co.   v.    Reid,    4   Kan.   App.   4, 

27  Iowa  119.  45   Pac.   722. 

Kentucky. — Slocum   v.   Caldwell  Massachnsetts.  —  Osborne       v. 

(Ky.),   13    S.   W.    1069,   12   Ky.  L.  Varnes,    179   Mass.    597,    61   N.   E. 

514.  276;     Saunders     v.     Bennett,    160 

Louisiana. — Jamison   v.   Barelli,  Mass.    48,    35    N.    E.    Ill,    39    Am. 

20  La.  Ann.  452;  Baltimore  V.  Par-  St.    456;    Perkins    v.     Davis,     120 

lange,  23  La.  Ann.  365.  Mass.  408. 

Texas. — Land  Mortgage  Bank  v.  Minnesota. — Hill   v.  Aldrich,  48 

Quanah  Hotel  Co.,  89  Tex.  332,  34  Minn.  73,  50  N.  W.  1020. 

S.  W.  730.  Missouri Russell  v.  Grant,  122 

Washington.— Bell  v.  Groves,  20  Mo.  161,  26  S.  W.  958,  43  Am.  St. 

Wash.   602,  56  Pac.   401.     May  be  563;    Bridewell    v.    Clark,    39    Mo. 

apportioned.       Grainger     v.     Old  170;    Wilson   v.    Lubke,     176    Mo. 

Kentucky  Paper  Co.,  105  Ky.  683,  210,  75  S.  W.  602,  98  Am.  St.  503. 

49  S.  W.  477,  20  Ky.  L.  1491.  Nevada,— Virgin  v.  Brubaker,  4 

loSmith  V.  Moore,  26  111.  392.  Nev.   31. 


§164] 


OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN. 


420 


are  not  recorded  until  after  the  labor  is  performed.^  If,  how- 
ever, a  deed  is  put  on  record  and  after  an  interval  of  time,  the 
mortgage  is  put  on  record  and  work  is  done  during  and  after 
the  interval,  it  has  been  held  that  the  mortgage  will  not  be 
prior  to  the  lien  for  work  done  during  and  after  the  interval.^ 
And  the  same  rule  will  apply  if  the  mortgage  was  not  made 
until  some  time  after  the  deed  had  been  made  and  put  on  file.^ 
Some  courts  have  made  the  test  to  be  whether  at  the  time  the 
lien  attaches  the  vendee  had  such  an  interest  as  would  support 
the  lien.^  Of  course  if  the  holder  or  owner  of  the  purchase- 
money  mortgage  agrees  that  it  may  be  subject  to  the  me- 
chanic's lien  that  aggreement  will  prevail  and  the  lien  will 
have  priority.*^  However,  it  has  been  held  that  if  he  merely 
agrees  that  it  shall  be  subordinate  to  a  mortgage  to  raise 
money  to  build  with,  that  this  will  not  make  his  mortgage 
secondary  to  a  mechanics'  lien."  A  Minnesota  court,  how- 
ever, has  held  that  in  such  a  case  the  mortgage  would  lose  its 


'Hevf  Jersey. — Lamb  v.  Cannon, 
38  N.  J.  L.  362;  Mutual  Life  Ins. 
Co.  V.  Walling,  51  N.  J.  Eq.  99,  26 
Atl.  453;  Gibbs  v.  Grant,  29  N.  J. 
Eq.  419;  Paul  v.  Hoeft,  28  N.  J. 
Eq.  11;  Macintosh  v.  Thurston,  25 
N.  J.  Eq.  242;  Strong  v.  Van  Deur- 
sen,  23  N.  J.  Eq.  369. 

PennsylTania.  —  McCree  v. 
Campion,  5  Phila.  (Pa.)  9;  Kelly's 
Appeal    (Pa.),   2  Atl.   868. 

Wisconsin. — Rees  v.  Ludington, 
13  Wis.  276  [308],  80  Am.  Dec. 
741.  Lots  purchased  at  different 
times.  Smith  v.  Wilkins,  38  Ore. 
583,  64  Pac.  760.  In  deter- 
mining what  is  a  purchase  money 
mortgage,  the  test  is  not  whether 
the  mortgage  for  the  purchase 
money  is  given  to  the  vendor,  but 
whether  it  is  to  be  used  as  pur- 
chase money.  Commonwealth 
Title  Insurance  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Ellis,  22  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  86,  8  Pa.  Dist. 


5,  citing  Jackson  v.  Austin,  15 
Johns.   (N.  Y.)   477. 

2 Oliver  v.  Davy,  34  Minn.  292, 
25  N.  W.  629. 

3Haupt  Lumber  Co.  v.  Westman, 
49  Minn.  397,  52  N.  W.  33.  Me- 
chanics' liens  have  priority  over  a 
purchase-money  judgment  entered 
on  judgment  notes  more  than  four 
months  after  liens  attach.  Allen 
V.  Oxnard,  152  Pa.  St.  621,  25  Atl. 
568. 

4Ansley  v.  Pasahro,  22  Neb.  662, 
35  N.  W.  885. 

SMoody  V.  Tschabold,  52  Minn. 
51,  53  N.  W.  1023;  McCausland  v. 
West  Duluth  Land  Co.,  51  Minn. 
246,  53  N.  W.  464;  Kittredge  v. 
Neumann,  26  N.  J.  Eq.  195. 

6Bassett  v.  INIenage,  52  Minn. 
121,  53  N.  W.  1064. 

'i'Hoagland  v.  Lowe,  39  Neb.  397, 
58  N.  W.  197. 


421 


PRIORITY — PURCHASE  MONEY  MORTGAGE. 


[§164 


priority.^  And  vmder  a  few  statutes,  the  purchase-money 
mortgage  has  been  held  to  be  subordinate  to  a  lien  for  ma- 
terials furnished  before  it  is  made  and  recorded.^  Kentucky 
courts  have  held,  that  if  the  purchaser  receives  notice  of  the 
lien,  before  the  payment  of  the  whole  of  the  purchase-money, 
that  the  lien  will  attach  to  the  purchase  money  remaining  un- 
paid.^*^  The  doctrine  as  to  the  priority  of  a  purchase-money 
mortgage  has  not  been  confined  to  the  original  parties,  and  it 
is  held  that  mortgages  given  to  secure  the  purchase  money  to 
a  third  person,  and  simultaneously  recorded,  will  be  prior  to 
the  lien  of  a  material  man  for  materials  furnished  to  a  person 
other  than  the  owner,  prior  to  the  execution  of  the  mortgage.^  ^ 
If,  however,  it  is  not  executed  for  some  time,  it  will  lose  its 
priority.^2  jf  the  vendor  retains  the  title  until  the  price  is 
paid,  and  then  conveys  the  property  to  another,  and  this  third 
person  gives  a  mortgage  for  the  purchase  money,  it  is  superior 
to  the  mechanic's  lien.^^  j^  a  case  where  the  vendor  agrees 
to  complete  the  building  and  in  pursuance  of  such  agreement, 
purchases  material,  then  the  mechanic's  lien  will  be  prior  to  a 
mortgage  made  to  a  third  person  for  the  purchase  money.^^ 


SMalmgren  v.  Phinney,  50  Minn. 
457,  52  N.  W.  915,  18  L.  R.  A. 
753;  Reilly  v.  Williams,  47  Minn. 
590,  50  N.  W.  826. 

9Avery  v.  Clark,  87  Cal.  619,  25 
Pac.  919,  22  Am.  St.  272;  Tanner 
V.  Bell,  61  Ga.  584.  Contracted 
for  before.  Phoenix  Mut.  Life 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Batchen,  6  111.  App. 
621. 

lOKentucky  Bldg.  &  Loan  Assn. 
V.  Kister,  101  Ky.  321,  41  S.  W. 
293,  19  Ky.  L.  494.  If  the  owner 
sells  the  house,  and  takes  a  pur- 
chase money  mortgage  it  will  not 
be  prior  to  a  lien  for  materials 
purchased  by  him.  American  Fire 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Pringle,  2  Serg.  &  R. 
(Pa.)   138. 


11  Connecticut. — Middleton  Sav. 
Bank  v.  Fellowes,  42  Conn.  36. 

Massachusetts. — Thaxter  v.  Wil- 
liams, 14  Pick.  (Mass.)  49. 

New  Jersey. — New  Jersey  Bldg., 
Loan  &  Inv.  Co.  v.  Bachelor,  54 
N.  J.  Eq.  600,  35  Atl.  745. 

PennsylTania. — Campbell's  Ap- 
peal, 36  Pa.  St.  247,  78  Am.  Dec. 
375n;  Weldon  v.  Gibbon,  2  Phila. 
(Pa.)   176. 

i2Soule  V.  Hurlbut,  58  Conn.  511, 
20  Atl.  610. 

i3Mutual  Aid  Building  &  Loan 
Co.  V.  Gashe,  56  Ohio  St.  273,  46 
N.   E.   985. 

i^Erdman  v.  Moore,  58  N.  J.  L. 
445,  33  Atl.  958. 


§  164]     OPERATION  AND  EFFECT  OF  PERFECTED  LIEN.        422 

A  third  person  has  no  greater  rights  than  the  vendor. ^^ 
Where  the  lien  is  entitled  to  priority,  the  fact  that  the  owner 
obtains  the  money  on  a  mortgage  for  the  purpose  of  paying 
for  the  land,  will  not  give  the  mortgage  priority.^®  And  in 
no  case  can  the  mechanic's  lien  be  prior,  unless  at  the  time 
the  materials  were  furnished,  the  person  making  the  contract 
had  such  an  interest  as  could  be  subjected  to  a  lien.^^ 

i^Finlayson  v.  Crooks,  47  Minn.  icwetmore   v.    Marsh,    81    Iowa 

74,   49    N.   W.   398,   645;    Reilly  v.       677,  47  N.  W.  1021. 
Hudson,  62  Mo.  383.  "Tritcli  v.  Norton,  10  Colo.  337, 

15  Pac.  680. 


CHAPTER   5. 


ASSIGNMENT  OF   LIEN   AND    INDEMNITY   AGAINST   LIEN. 


Sec. 
165. 
166. 


167. 


Assignability  of  lien. 
Assignability        of        lien — 
Form — ^Partnership  —  Death 
of  claimant. 

Effect     of     assignment     of 
claim  or  lien. 


Sec. 
168. 

169. 
170. 
171. 


Indemnity   against  liens   by 
contractor  to  owner. 
Bonds  of  contractor. 
Indemnity    bond — Liability. 
Indemnity       bond — Estoppel 
of       surety — Retention       of 
money. 
172.     Indemnity  bond — Action  on. 


§  165.  Assignability  of  lien. — At  common  law,  a  chose  in 
action  was  not  assignable,  and  therefore,  until  that  rule  was  modi- 
fied either  by  statute  or  the  decisions  of  courts,  a  valid  assign- 
ment could  not  be  made  of  a  claim  either  before  or  after  it  was 
perfected  into  a  lien.^  Under  the  rules  adopted  that  the 
real  parties  in  interest  should  always  bring  suit  thereon, 
unless  the  statute  relating  to  mechanic's  liens  clearly  indicates 
to  the  contrary,  the  right  is  not  confined  to  the  mechanic  alone.^ 
The  perfected  lien  is  generally  held  to  be  assignable. ^     Upon 


iRogers  v.  Omaha  Hotel  Co.,  4 
Neb.  54;  Lovett  v.  Brown,  40  N. 
H.  511;  Caldwell  v.  Lawrence,  10 
"Wis.  331.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit 
Mechanics'  Liens  §  202. 

2j\IcCrea  v.  Johnson,  104  Cal. 
224,  37  Pac.  902;  Fitzgerald  v. 
Trustees  of  First  Presbyterian 
Church  of  City  of  Port  Huron,  1 
Mich.    (N.  P.)    243. 

Conflicting  Decisions. — The  de- 
cisions on  the  point  in  other  states 
are  no  doubt  somewhat  conflict- 
ing, although  the  conflict  may  be 
explained  to  some  extent  by  the 
different  provisions  of  various 
statutes,      some       showing    more 


clearly  than  others  that  only  a 
personal  right  was  intended  to  be 
conferred.  But  the  weight  of  au- 
thority is  clearly  to  the  point  that 
the  said  right  cannot  be  as- 
signed. Mills  V.  La  Verne  Land 
Co.,  97  Cal.  254,  32  Pac.  169,  33 
Am.   St.   168. 

^Minnesota. — Tuttle  v.  Howe, 
14  ,Minn.  145,  100  Am.  Dec.  205. 

Nebraska. — Goodman,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Pence,  21  Neb.  459,  32  N.  W. 
219;  Rogers  v.  Omaha  Hotel  Co., 
4  Neb.   54. 

Nevada. — Skyrme  v.  Occidental 
Mill,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Nev.  219. 


423 


§165] 


ASSIGNABILITY   OF  LIEN. 


424 


this  proposition  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt,  but  upon  the 
question  whether  the  assignment  of  the  claim  before  it  has 
reached  the  stage  of  a  perfected  lien  is  assignable  is  a  matter 
upon  which  the  courts  are  not  in  accord.  A  number  hold  that 
the  mere  right  is  not  assignable.^  And  this  is  held  to  apply, 
even  where  the  statute  specifically  made  the  lien  assignable.^ 
Under  other  statutes,  however,  it  is  held  that  the  right  even  though 
not  perfected  as  a  lien  is  assignable,  and  that  the  assignee  may 
proceed  and  perfect  the  lien  in  accordance  with  same.^  The 
courts  holding  the  latter  view  seem  to  be  more  in  accord  with 
the  growing  idea  of  the  law,  and  in  time  this  will  no  doubt  become 
the  prevailing  doctrine.  So  it  1-tas  been  held  where  the  statute  gives 
a  lien  on  the  fund,  that  the  right  thereto  is  assignable.  This 
decision  however  was  made  under  a  statute  which  allowed  the 
assignment  of  the  claim."  Of  course  if  the  holder  of  the  claim 
goes  into  bankruptcy  or  insolvency,  the  trustee  or  assignee 
will  succeed  to  his  risrhts.^ 


IVew  York. — Roberts  v.  Fowler, 
3  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  632,  4  Abb. 
Pr.   (N.  Y.)   263. 

Oregon. — Brown  v.  Harper,  4 
Ore.  89. 

South  Carolina. — Oliver  v.  Fow- 
ler, 22  S.  Car.  534. 

United  States. — Davis  v.  Bils- 
land,  18  Wall.  (U.  S.)  659,  21  L. 
ed.  969.  Statute  controls.  Van 
Kannel  Revolving  Door  Co.  v. 
Astor,  119  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  214, 
104   N.  Y.   Supp.   653. 

4  Rauer  v.  Fay,  110  Cal.  361,  42 
Pac.  902;  Griswold  v.  Carthage, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Mo.  App.  52;  Rol- 
lin  V.  Cross,  45  N.  Y.  766;  Rob- 
erts v.  Fowler,  3  E.  D.  Smith  (N. 
Y.)  632,  4  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  263. 
Assignee  of  the  mechanic  is  en- 
titled to  a  lien,  and  may  make  the 
affidavit    necessary    for    registra- 


tion. Kelly  V.  McKenzie,  1  Mani- 
toba 169. 

SLangan  v.  Sankey,  55  Iowa  52, 
7  N.  W.  393;  Brown  v.  Smith,  55 
Iowa  31,   7   N.  W.  401. 

cPeatman  v.  Centerville  Light, 
Heat  &  Power  Co.,  105  Iowa  1,  74 
N.  W.  689,  67  Am.  St.  276;  Mc- 
Alister  v.  Des  Rochers,  132  Mich. 
381,  93  N.  W.  887;  9  Det.  Leg.  N. 
645;  Hoagland  v.  Van  Etten,  31 
Neb.  292,  47  N.  W.  920. 

"Bank  v.  School  Directors  of 
Town  of  Iron  River,  91  Wis.  596, 
65  N.  W.  368.  As  to  what  con- 
stitutes an  equitable  assignment 
see  Van  Kannel  Revolving  Door 
Co.  V.  Astor,  119  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
214,  104  N.  Y.  Supp.  653. 

sSprague  Inv.  Co.  v.  Mouat 
Lumber  &  Inv.  Co.,  14  Colo.  App. 
107,  60  Pac.  179;  Davis  v.  Fidelity 


425  ASSIGNABILITY  OF   LIEN.  [§  166 

§  166.  Assignability  of  lien — Form — Partnership — Death  of 
claimant. — There  is  no  particular  form,  in  the  absence  of  statu- 
tory requirement  necessary  to  make  a  valid  transfer,^  unless 
the  court  should  hold  that  such  assignment  passes  an  interest 
in  real  estate,  then  it  would  need  to  be  in  writing.^*'  And 
where  courts  hold  that  the  assignment  of  the  debt  carries  with 
it  the  lien,  the  assignment  may  be  by  parol.^^  To  constitute 
a  valid  assignment,  however  it  should  be  absolute,  and  not  a 
mere  conditional  order,i2  and  under  some  statutes  it  is  held 
that  the  assignee  should  notify  the  owner,  so  that  the  owner 
will  not  make  payments  to  the  assignor.  This  seems  to  be  a 
salutary  rule  in  order  to  prevent  the  working  of  a  fraud.^^ 
If  the  contract  itself  is  fraudulently  assigned,  which  it  seems 
could  not  be  done,  unless  all  parties  consented,  and  the  as- 
signee thereafter  performed  it,  he  would  undoubtedly  be  en- 
titled to  enforce  his  lien.^^  If  a  partner  should  sell  his  inter- 
est in  the  firm,  whether  to  a  third  person,i^  or  to  the  remain- 
ing members  of  the  firm,  this  will  not  destroy  or  affect  the 
right  of  the  firm  to  the  lien.^^     If  the  firm  is  dissolved,  the 

&   Deposit  Co.,   75   App.   Div.    (N.  lORitter     v.     Stevenson,    7    Cal. 

Y.)   518,  78  N.  Y.  Supp.  336.  388. 

9Clarkson  v.  Louderback,  36  Fla.  UTrueblood    v.    Shellhouse,    19 

660,  19  So.  887.  Ind.  App.  91,  49  N.  E.  47. 

Sufficient.  —  An  assignment    of  i2Holland  v.  Cunliff,  96  Mo.  App. 

"our   claim    against   M."    for    ma-  67,  69  S.  W.  737;  Van  Kannel  Re- 

terial    furnished    on     a     building,  volving    Door    Co.    v.    Astor,    119 

made  after  the  filing  of  the  lien  App.   Div.    (N.  Y.)    214,  104  N.  Y. 

and   prior   to    the   commencement  Supp.  653. 

of   the   suit,   is    sufficient   to   con-  i^in  re  Well's  Estate,  2  Del.  Co. 

stitute  an  assignment  of  the  lien  Ct.   (Pa.)    172. 

as    against   the  owner;    both   the  i^Schalk  v.  Norris,  7  Misc.   (N. 

assignor  and  the  assignee  testify-  Y.)    20,  27   N.  Y.  Supp.   390;    Mc- 

ing  that  it  was  intended  as  an  as-  Donald    v.    Kelly,    14    R.    I.    335; 

signment  of  the  lien,  in  order  that  laege  v.  Bossieux,  15  Graft.   (Va.) 

it  might  be  foreclosed  in  the  same  83,  73  Am.  Dec.  189. 

suit  with  the  lien  of  the  assignee.  i^simons    v.   Webster,    108    Cal. 

Nottingham     v.     McKendrick,     38  16,  40  Pac.  1056. 

Ore.  495,  57  Pac.  195,  63  Pac.  822.  icMilwaukee      Mechanics'      Ins. 


§167] 


ASSIGNABILITY  OF  LIEN. 


426 


partner  owning  the  claim  can  enforce  it.^"  And  if  a  claimant 
dies,  his  rights  may  be  enforced  by  his  administrator.^^  When 
the  contractor  assigns  his  claim,  it  can  only  act  on  the  amount 
in  the  hands  of  the  owner  and  due  the  contractor  at  the  time 
the  assignment  is  made.^^ 

§  167.  Effect  of  assignment  of  claim  or  lien. — In  jurisdic- 
tions where  the  right  or  claim  before  it  is  perfected  may  be 
assigned  it  is  necessarily  held,  that  the  assignment  of  the 
same  carries  with  it  the  right  to  perfect  the  lien  and  enforce 
it.^  The  courts  holding  that  the  debt  or  claim  may  not  be 
assigned  so  as  to  convey  a  right  of  action  on  the  debt,  very 
consistently  hold  that  the  assignee  cannot  perfect  the  lien.^ 
Where  the  assignment  is  not  absolute,  then  the  right  remains 


Co.  V.  Brown,  3  Kan.  App.  225,  44 
Pac.  35. 

i"Brown  v.  School  District,  48 
Kan.  709,  29  Pac.  1069;  Milwau- 
kee Mechanics'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Brown, 
3  Kan.  App.  225,  44  Pac.  35;  Bus- 
field  V.  Wheeler,  14  Allen  (Mass.) 
139;  Ogden  v.  Alexander,  140  N. 
Y.  356,  35  N.  E.  638. 

isTelfer  v.  Kierstead,  2  Hilt.  (N. 
Y.)  577.  But  if  a  firm  sells  out 
this  of  itself,  it  will  not  carry  the 
right  to  its  successor.  Bohem  v. 
Seabury,  141  Pa.  St.  594,  21  Atl. 
674.  Or  if  it  loses  its  identity  as 
by  a  partnership  being  incor- 
porated. Allen  V.  Frumet  I\Iin.  & 
Smelting  Co.,  73  Mo.  688. 

i9Carter  v.  Brady,  51  Fla.  404, 
41  So.  539. 

lAlabania.  —  Leftwich  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Florence  Mutual  Bldg., 
Loan  &  Savings  Assn.,  104  Ala. 
584,   18   So.   48. 

Colorado. — Perkins  v.  Boyd,  16 
Colo.     App.     266,     65     Pac.     350; 


Sprague  Inv.  Co.  v.  Mouat  Lum- 
ber, etc.,  Co.,  14  Colo.  App.  107, 
60  Pac.  179. 

Indiana. — Jenckes  v.  Jenckes, 
145  Ind.  624,  44  N.  E.  632. 

Minnesota. — Kinney  v.  Duluth 
Ore.  Co.,  58  Minn.  455,  60  N.  W. 
23,  49  Am.  St.  528n. 

Missouri. — Jones  v.  Hurst,  67 
Mo.  568. 

Montana. — Mason  v.  Germaine, 
1  Mont.   263. 

Wisconsin. — Bank  v.  School  Di- 
rectors of  Town  of  Iron  River,  91 
"Wis.  596,  65  N.  W.  368.  In  Massa- 
chusetts the  lien  is  created  when 
the  labor  is  performed  and  an  as- 
signment of  the  claim  after  the 
labor  is  performed  carries  the  lien 
with  it.  Wiley  v.  Connelly,  179 
Mass.  360,  60  N.  E.  784. 

See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechan- 
ics'  Liens    §  204. 

2Hooper  v.  Sells,  58  Ga.  127; 
Noll  V.  Kenneally,  37  Neb.  879,  56 
N.  W.  722;  Zachary  v.  Perry,  130 
N.  Car.  289,  41  S.  E.  533. 


427 


EFFECT   OF   ASSIGNMENT. 


[§167 


in  the  assignor  to  perfect  a  lien  securing  the  same,^  as  where, 
for  example,  he  assigns  only  a  part  of  the  debt,^  or  gives  it 
as  collateral  security,^  or  delivers  an  unaccepted  order  for  pay- 
ment,^ or  gives  a  promissory  note  with  no  intent  to  assign 
lienJ  And  some  courts  have  held  that  even  if  the  assignment 
be  an  absolute  one  the  assignor  still  has  such  an  interest  in 
the  claim  that  if  he  has  not  already  perfected  the  lien,  he  may 
do  so,  and  this  doctrine  seems  to  be  a  growing  one.^  Assign- 
ments of  claims  have  been  carried  far  enough  to  protect  the 
equitable  rights  of  the  assignee  in  installments  not  yet  due.^ 
The  debt — if  that  is  the  intent  of  the  parties — may  be  assigned 
without  taking  with  it  the  right  to  the  lien.i^  As  a  matter  of 
course  if  both  the  assignee  and  assignor  should  fail  to  perfect 
the  lien  as  the  statute  requires,  the  lien  right  is  lost.^^  The 
fact  that  the  claim  is  purchased  by  one  as  agent  for  the 
owner,i2  or  even  after  suit  is  brought,  will  not  defeat  the  as- 


3Ittner  v.  Hughes,  154  Mo.  55, 
55  S.  W.  267. 

4Hamilton  v.  Whitson,  5  Kan. 
App.  347,  48  Pac.  462. 

sCalifornia. — Macomber  v.  Bige- 
low,  126  Cal.  9,  58  Pac.  312. 

Illinois. — Weber  v.  Bushnell,  171 
111.   587,   49   N.  E.   728. 

Indiana. — Shapiro  v.  Schultz,  32 
Ind.  App.  219,  68  N.  E.  184. 

Minnesota. — Davis  v.  Crookston 
Waterworks,  Power  &  Light  Co., 
57  Minn.  402,  59  N.  W.  482,  47  Am. 
St.  622. 

Missouri. — Ittner  v.  Hughes,  133 
Mo.  679,  34  S.  W.  1110. 

New  York. — Gaas  v.  Souther, 
167  N.  Y.  604,  60  N.  E.  1111. 

Wa-sliington. — Potvin  v.  Denny 
Hotel  Co.,  9  Wash.  316,  37  Pac. 
320,  38  Pac.  1002. 

cOmaha  Oil  &  Paint  Co.  v. 
Greater  American  Exposition  Co. 
(Neb.),  93  N.  W.  963. 


7St.  John  V.  Hall,  41  Conn.  522; 
Hill  V.  Alliance  Bldg.  Co.,  6  S. 
Dak.  160,  60  N.  W.  752,  55  Am. 
St.    819. 

SLinneman  v.  Bieber,  85  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  477,  33  N.  Y.  Supp.  129; 
Hallahan  v.  Herbert,  11  Abb.  Pr. 
(N.  S.)  (N.  Y.)  326,  4  Daly  (N.  Y.) 
209. 

9Donnelly  v.  Johnes,  58  N.  J. 
Eq.  442,  44  Atl.  180.  But  the  lien 
can  not  be  perfected  until  the 
right  has  accrued  and  the  install- 
ment becomes  due.  Merchant  v. 
Ottumwa  Water  Power  Co.,  54 
Iowa  451,  6  N.  W.  709. 

lopriedman  v.  Roderick,  20  111. 
App.  622;  Peatman  v.  Centerville 
Light,  Heat  &  Power  Co.,  105 
Iowa  1,  74  N.  W.  689,  67  Am.  St. 
276. 

iiEnglish  V.  Lee,  63  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  572,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  576. 

isTitle  Guarantee  &  Trust  Co. 


167 


ASSIGNABILITY   OF   LIEN. 


428 


signment  if  the  purchaser  is  made  a  party. ^^  If  the  statute  re- 
quires an  assignment  to  be  in  writing  of  course  it  must  be  so 
done  to  make  it  valid. ^^  If  the  lien  or  right  is  assignable  it 
necessarily  carries  with  it  a  judgment  rendered  thereon/^  and 
the  assignee  is  subrogated  to  all  the  rights  of  the  assignor. ^^ 
He  may  object  to  the  validity  of  the  claim  of  a  subcontractor 
against  his  assignor.^"  If  he  has  the  claim  of  the  principal 
contractor  he  takes  it  subject  to  the  rights  of  the  subcontrac- 
tor/s  or  defenses  of  the  owner.^^  If  the  purchase  is  bona 
fide,  it  is  immaterial  what  the  purchaser  may  have  given  for 
the  claim.-*^  The  purchaser  takes  the  claim,  however,  as  it 
stood  at  the  time  of  the  assignment.^! 


V.  Wrenn,  35  Ore.  62,  56  Pac.  271, 
76  Am.  St.  454.  (Does  not  merge 
in  the  fee  if  that  was  not  in- 
tended.) 

i3if  the  contractor  goes  into 
bankruptcy  after  the  claim  is  as- 
signed, it  will  not  affect  the  as- 
signee's rights  and  the  trustee  in 
bankruptcy  cannot  settle  the  same 
to  the  detriment  of  the  rights  of 
the  assignee.  Kudner  v.  Bath, 
135  Mich.  241,  97  N.  W.  685,  10 
Det.  Leg.  N.  742;  Fairhaven  Land 
Co.  V.  Jordan,  5  Wash.  729,  32  Pac. 
729;  Lawrence  v.  Congregational 
Church,  32  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  489, 
53  N.  Y.  Supp.  145. 

14  The  holder  of  a  mechanic's 
lien  claim  on  which  suit  had  been 
commenced,  assigned  it  in  writ- 
ing as  follows:  "j  *  *  *  ^o 
hereby  sell,  assign  and  transfer 
*  *  *  all  my  right,  title  and 
interest  and  claim  to  a  mechanic's 
lien,  as  set  forth  and  claimed  by 
me  in  the  above-entitled  suit,  and 
in  the  petition  and  amended  pe- 
tition filed  therein."  "It  is  un- 
derstood     that     the      assignment 


*  *  *  does  not  include  subsid- 
iary notes  taken  by  (the  assign- 
or) ,  and  now  in  the  D.  Bank,  in  the 
sum  of  about  $6,000."  Parol  evi- 
dence was  not  admissible  to  show 
that  the  notes  were  collateral  to  a 
part  of  the  claim,  and  that  such 
part  was  not  assigned.  Bigelow 
V.  Wilson,  77  Iowa  603,  42  N.  W. 
501;  Shearer  v.  Browne,  102  Wis. 
585,  78  N.  W.  744. 

i5Batesville  Institute  v.  KaufE- 
man,  18  Wall.  (U.  S.)  151,  21  L. 
ed.  775. 

10  Henry  &  Coatsworth  Co.  v. 
Fisherdick,  37  Neb.  207,  55  N.  W. 
643;  Rogers  v.  Omaha  Hotel  Co., 
4  Neb.  54;  Skyrme  v.  Occidental 
Mill  &  Min.   Co.,   8  Nev.  219. 

iTKeim  v.  McRoberts,  18  Pa.  Su- 
per. Ct.  167. 

18  St.  Paul's  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  V.  Gorman,  10  Ohio 
Cir.  Dec.  103. 

i9Goldman  v.  Brinton,  90  Md. 
259,  44  Atl.  1029. 

20Title  Guarantee  &  Trust  Co. 
V.  Wrenn,  35  Ore.  62,  56  Pac.  271, 
76  Am.  St.  454. 

2iFirst  Nat.  Bank  v.  Campbell, 


429  INDEMNITY   AGAINST    LIENS.  [§  168 

§  1C8.     Indemnity  against  liens  by  contractor  to  owner. — 

Somewhat  akin  to  the  assignment  of  liens,  in  that  a  third 
person  may  become  interested  in  such  matters  is  the  case 
where  a  bond  is  given  by  a  contractor  to  the  owner  to  save 
the  owner  harmless  against  any  liens,  that  may  be  asserted  on 
the  property.  These  bonds  have  no  connection  with  the  right 
of  the  mechanic  to  a  lien  on  the  premises  for  labor  done  or 
material  furnished.  Some  states  have  passed  laws  making  the 
owner,  after  he  has  entered  into  a  contract  with  a  contractor, 
liable  to  the  subcontractor  or  material  man  without  regard  to 
whether  or  not  there  may  be  anything  due  from  the  principal 
contractor  for  work  done  thereunder.  Some  few  courts — 
Ohio  among  the  number,^ — have  held  that  such  laws  are  not 
constitutional  but  the  prevailing  opinion  is  that  they  are  con- 
stitutional and  that  when  the  owner  enters  into  a  contract 
with  another  to  make  certain  improvements  for  him,  that  he 
confers  upon  such  third  person  an  agency  to  purchase  neces- 
sary materials  and  proper  labor  to  complete  the  contract. 
Where  such  statutes  have  been  passed,  the  only  way  open  to 
an  owner  to  save  himself  harmless  against  an  unreliable  con- 
tractor is  to  take  a  bond  of  indemnity.  As  a  general  rule, 
while  these  bonds  in  an  indirect  way  inure  to  the  benefit  of 
subcontractors,  yet  unless  so  stipulated  in  the  bond  or  express- 
ly made  so  by  statute,  the  material  man  or  subcontractor  can- 
not sue  on  such  bond.  The  material  man  or  subcontractor 
must  pursue  the  property  upon  which  the  labor  has  been  per- 

24  Tex.  Civ.  App.  160,  58  S.  W.  is  not  entitled  to  the  money  as 
628.  No  lien  in  existence.  Eng-  against  the  lien  of  a  sub-contrac- 
lish  V.  Lee,  63  Hun  (N.  Y.)  572,  18  tor,  unless  the  owner  has  in  good 
N.  Y.  Supp.  576.  Payment  to  as-  faith  bound  himself  to  pay  the  as- 
signor. McCormick  v.  Sadler,  21  signee.  Anly  v.  Holy  Trinity 
Utah  62,  60  Pac.  547.  Waiver  of  Church,  2  Manitoba  248. 
lien  by  assignor.  Kent  Lumber  i  See  §  4,  as  to  constitutionality 
Co.  V.  Ward,  37  Wash.  60,  79  Pac.  of  law,  and  §  8  as  to  construction 
485.  An  assignee  of  the  contract  of  law.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit. 
price  for  the  erection  of  a  building  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  312.  See  §  46 

Form  of  bond. 


168] 


INDEMNITY    AGAINST   LIENS. 


430 


formed.2  These  building  contracts  or  indemnity  bonds  in  re- 
lation to  the  rights  of  a  surety  are  strictly  construed.^  It  has 
been  held  before  the  owner  can  take  advantage  of  such  a  bond 
or  sue  thereon  he  must  have  complied  with  his  contract,^  and 
furthermore  that  no  action  can  be  maintained  thereon  until 
there  has  been  a  breach  of  the  bond,  or  some  probability  at 
least  of  having  his  property  taken  for  a  mechanic's  lien.^ 
In  some  states,  the  statute  requires, — especially  where  the  con- 
tractor deals  with  a  public  corporation — that  he  must  give  an 
indemnity  bond,  and  it  is  usually  provided  therein  that  this 
bond  is  for  the  benefit  of  material  men  or  subcontractors  and 
that  they  may  maintain  an  action  thereon.^ 

§  169.  Bonds  of  contractor. — Where  the  statute  requires 
the  original  contract  to  be  recorded,  and  this  has  not  been  done, 
and  the  bond  has  been  given  by  the  contractor  to  secure  the 
owner  against  claims  of  material  men,  it  is  held  that  this  fail- 
ure to  record  the  original  contract  will  not  invalidate  the  in- 
demnity bond.^  And  the  same  rule  will  be  applied  where 
specifications  have  not  been  filed  as  required  by  statute.^  So 
too,  it  has  been  held  that  the  fact  that  the  person  to  whom  the 


2  Sayre-Newton  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Union  Bank,  6  Colo.  App.  541,  41 
Pac.  844. 

3  Boas  V.  Maloney,  138  Cal.  105, 
70  Pac.  1004.  "With  a  full  release 
of  liens."  This  clause  was  intend- 
ed to  protect  the  owner  against 
liens  and  claims  arising  under  the 
mechanic's  lien  law.  Titus  v. 
Gunn,  69  N.  J.  L.  410,  55  Atl.  735. 

■*  Wagner  v.  Ditte,  2  Mo.  App. 
254. 

5  Friend  v.  Ralston,  35  Wash. 
422,  77  Pac.  794;  Nash  v.  Common- 
wealth, 174  Mass.  335,  54  N.  E. 
865. 

c  A  provision  in  a  contract  for 
a     municipal    improvement,     that 


the  contractor  will  not  permit  any 
liens  to  remain  on  the  property, 
was  for  the  benefit  of  the  corpora- 
tion merely,  and  hence  did  not 
prevent  an  assignment  of  the  con- 
tractor's claim  against  the  city, 
nor  affect  the  question  of  priority 
of  such  assignment  over  liens  sub- 
sequently filed.  McKay  v.  New 
York,  46  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  579, 
62  N.  Y.   Supp.   58. 

1  Kiessig  v.  Allspaugh,  99  Cal. 
452,  34  Pac.  106,  also  91  Cal.  234, 
27  Pac.  662.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  313. 

2  Blyth  v.  Robinson,  104  Cal. 
239,  37   Pac.   904. 


431  BONDS  OF  CONTRACTOR.  [§  169 

bond  was  given  was  not  in  fact  the  owner  of  the  premises,  the 
bond  would  be  good  if  he  had  an  interest  therein  that  de- 
manded protection.^  Where  a  bond  is  given  by  virtue  of  stat- 
utory provisions,  it  may  be  held  void  if  the  statute  is  declared 
unconstitutional.^  But  if  the  bond  is  not  given  pursuant  to 
the  statute,  it  may  be  good  as  between  the  parties,  even  if  a 
statute  relating  to  bonds  of  that  character  is  unconstitutional. 
If  the  law  requires  the  bond  to  be  filed,  and  it  is  not  done,  then 
it  can  not  be  enforced.^  However,  if  the  delay  in  making  or 
filing  results  from  the  fraud  of  the  surety,  he  could  not  set  up 
the  fact  of  a  failure  to  file.*'  The  consideration  that  moves 
the  making  of  the  principal  contract  is  sufficient  to  support 
the  indemnity  bond.'^  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  indemnity 
bond  should  be  given  at  the  same  time  that  the  original  con- 
tract is  made.^  However,  a  bond  to  secure  the  one  against 
the  violation  of  his  own  obligation  or  of  an  independent  exist- 
ing obligation,  of  the  third  person  is  without  consideration 
and  void.^  A  bond  given  by  a  contractor  to  deliver  the  build- 
ing free  from  all  liens,  will  not  be  construed  to  prevent  him 

3  In   an   action   on   the   bond    it      Surety  Co.,  138  Cal.  543,  69   Pac. 
is    immaterial    what   interest      in      250,  71  Pac.  701. 

the    land   the   nominal   obligee    in  5  Mangrum      v.    Truesdale,    128 

the  bond  may  have.     The  obligors  Cal.  145,  60  Pac.  775. 

cannot    be    permitted      to      allege  c  Lichtentag   v.    Feitel,    113    La. 

want  of  title  to  the  land  in  such  931,  37   So.  880. 

nominal  obligee,  for  the  purpose  7  Oberbeck    v.    Mayer,    59      Mo. 

of  defeating  those  who,  on  the  se-  App.   289. 

curity  of  the  bond,  have  furnished  s  Fullerton  Lumber  Co.  v.  Cal- 

material    for    and    done    labor   on  houn  89  Mo.  App.  209. 

the  work  referred  to  in  it.     It  is  ^  A    bond    is      nudum      pactum 

enough  for  them  that  the  bond  is  whose  sole  purpose  and  consider- 

executed  by  the  contractor   (with  ation  is  to  indemnify  the  obligee 

sureties)    to    the    person    who    as  for   the    performance   of   his   own 

owner  has  contracted  to  have  the  legal    obligation:    or    whose    sole 

building     constructed.     Steffes  v.  consideration  is  a  payment  made 

Lemke,      40    Minn.    27,    41    N.    W.  by  the  obligee  to  a  third  person 

302.  in  discharge  of  an  existing  legal 

4  Shaughnessy       v.       American  obligation.     Hanks  v.  Barron,   95 

Tenn.  275,   32  S.  W.  195. 


§  170]  INDEMNITY    AGAINST   LIENS.  432 

from  filing  a  lien  to  secure  himself. ^*^  Nor  will  the  taking-  of 
an  indemnity  bond  compel  the  owner  to  hold  the  money  for 
subcontractors  or  to  pay  the  contractor  in  any  other  way  than 
is  provided  in  the  original  contract. ^^  All  such  bonds  are 
usually  construed  strictly  and  held  to  cover  only  matters  com- 
ing plainly  within  their  terms. ^^  ^g  ^  general  rule,  however, 
they  will  include  all  labor  and  materials  essential  to  a  sub- 
stantial performance  of  the  original  contract.^^  'Yhe  mere  fact 
that  all  did  not  sign  the  bond  that  those  signing  believed  would 
sign,  will  not  release  the  signers,  unless  the  party  receiving  the 
bond  knew  that  they  signed  with  the  understanding  that  the 
others  would  sign.^-* 

§  170.  Indemnity  bond — Liability. — As  a  general  rule,  in 
action  on  these  bonds,  the  liability  of  the  principal  to  the 
owner  is  not  brought  in  question.  This  is  true  for  the  reason 
that  if  the  contractor  is  responsible,  action  will  be  brought 
directly  against  him  and  not  against  others  that  may  be  on 
the  bond.  And  so  the  question  most  frequently  brought  up  in 
such  bonds  is  how  sureties  are  affected  thereon,  and  for  reason 
that  the  surety  has  received  no  particular  benefit,  and  it  is  al- 
ways more  or  less  of  a  hardship  to  compel  him  to  pay  any- 
thing thereon,  the  courts  have  held  that  the  surety  is  not  liable 

10  Bassett   v.    Swarts,    17    R.    I.  ings   at  the   time   required,   prop- 

215,    21    Atl.    352.  erly   completed.      This    obligation 

iiSlagle    V.    De      Gooyer,      115  did  not  impose  the  duty  of  indem- 

lowa  401,  88  N.  W.  932.  nifying  the  builder   against  liens 

12  A  contract  between  a  build-  for  work  done  and  material  fur- 

er   and   a   mechanic    required   the  nished  in  the  construction  of  the 

latter,  in  consideration  of  a  speci-  building.     Gato  v.  Warrington,  37 

fled  sum  of  money,  to  erect,  fin-  Fla.   542,   19   So.   883. 

ish,  and  deliver,  on  a  date  men-  i3  Union  Sheet  Metal  Works  v. 

tioned,  certain  buildings,   accord-  Dodge,   129  Cal.   390,   62  Pac.  41; 

ing  to  given  plans  and  specifica-  King  v.  Downey,  24  Ind.  App.  262, 

tions;  and  the  obligation  of  sure-  56  N.  E.  680. 

ties  was  that  the  mechanic  would  14  Slack  v.  Cresswell,  2  Montg. 

fulfill    in    every      particular      the  Co.  L.    (Pa.)   145. 
contract,    and    deliver    the    build- 


433 


INDEMNITY  BOND — LIABILITY. 


[§170 


unless  within  the  "letter  of  the  bond."^  Therefore  it  is  held 
that  a  surety  is  not  liable  where  the  person  asserting  the  claim 
has  no  debt  or  demand  which  the  law  recognizes  as  a  debt  or 
claim  against  the  beneficiary  of  the  bond,^  nor  can  there  be  a 
liability  where  the  claim  is  for  materials,  that  can  not  become 
a  lien  charge.^  Neither  is  the  surety  responsible  where  the 
breach  complained  of  is  not  the  same  as  that  mentioned  in  the 
bond/  nor  if  the  beneficiary  has  not  complied  with  his  part  of 
the  contract.^  As  a  general  rule,  the  owner  cannot  recover 
unless  he  was  obliged  to  pay  the  debt  to  relieve  his  property 


iBell  V.  Paul,  35  Neb.  240,  52 
N.  W.  1110;  McRae  v.  University 
of  the  South,  (Tenn.  Ch.  App.),  52 
S.  W.  463;  Wilson  v.  Davidson 
County,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  536.  See  Dec. 
&  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§315. 

2  Hunt  V.  King,  97  Iowa  88,  66 
N.  W.   71. 

3  Marquette  Opera  House  Bldg. 
Co.  V.  Wilson,  109  Mich.  223,  67  N. 
W.  123.  It  is  no  defense  to  an  ac- 
tion on  a  building  contractor's 
bond  to  a  railroad  company 
against  liens  for  material  that  a 
portion  of  the  material  was  used 
in  constructing  a  hotel,  the  hotel 
being  a  part  of  a  depot  which  he 
built.  Heery  v.  Mott  Iron-Works 
Co.,  62  Pac.  904,  10  Kan.  App.  579 
(without  opinion). 

4  Holcombe  v.  Mattson,  50  Minn. 
324,  52  N.  W.  857;  Hurst  v.  Ran- 
dall, 68  Mo.  App.  507.  Sureties 
are  released  by  a  departure  from 
the  terms  of  the  contract  in  re- 
spect to  plan  and  materials. 
Erickson  v.  Brandt,  53  Minn.  10, 
55  N.  W.   62. 

Attorney  fees. — The  contractor 
gave  bond  to  indemnify  the  owner 
against    any    counsel    fees    which 


might  be  incurred  in  defending 
against  lien  claims  of  subcontrac- 
tors. The  owner  withheld  his 
consent  to  a  payment  of  a  sub- 
contractor, and  advised  the  con- 
tractor to  contest  the  claim.  The 
latter  paid  his  own  counsel  fees 
in  the  ensuing  litigation.  The 
owner  could  not  recover  on  the 
bond  for  counsel  fees  paid  on  his 
own  behalf  in  the  same  litigation. 
Hoyt  V.  Greene,  33  Mo.  App.  205. 
o  Herrell  v.  Donovan,  7  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  322;  Queal  v.  Strad- 
ley,  117  Iowa  748,  90  N.  W.  588; 
Kaufmann  v.  Cooper,  46  Neb.  644, 
65  N.  W.  796;  Crowley  v.  United 
States  Fidelity  &  Guaranty  Co., 
29  Wash.  268,  69  Pac.  784.  Pay- 
ment to  H.  of  proper  amounts, 
but  at  intervals  somewhat  differ- 
ent from  that  specified  in  the  con- 
tract, was  immaterial.  Robinson 
V.  Hagenkamp,  52  Minn.  101,  53 
N.  W.  813.  A  covenant  in  a  bond 
to  secure  the  pay  and  keep  it 
harmless  from  all  liens  and 
claims  of  liens  is  a  contract  of 
indemnity,  and  is  not  violated  by 
simply  permitting  liens  to  be 
filed.  It  will  only  be  broken 
when  pay  was  actually  damnified 


28 


§  170] 


INDEMNITY    AGAINST   LIENS. 


434 


of  the  lien,*^  or  must  do  something  to  free  himself  from  a  legal 
liability  J  However,  he  need  not  wait  until  judgment  is  re- 
covered or  even  until  liens  are  filed,  if  they  are  of  such  a 
character  that  they  may  be  filed  and  the  contractor  refuses  to 
pay  the  same.^  Of  course  if  he  paid  such  claims  when  there 
was  no  legal  demand  for  the  same,  he  will  fail  in  an  action  on 
the  bond. 9  Especially  w'ill  this  be  true  if  the  original  contract 
shows  a  valid  defense.^*'  But  it  wall  be  no  defense  to  the 
surety  that  the  principal  is  a  corporation  which  has  no  legal 
existence, ^^  or  that  there  is  an  action  pending  by  lien  claim- 
ants to  recover  a  personal  judgment,^^  or  that  the  contractor 
has  a  partner,  the  surety  not  making  objection  when  it  be- 
came known,^'"  or  that  the  contract  Avas  void  by  reason  of  not 


by  reason  of  liens  or  claims  of 
liens.  Carson  Opera  House  Assn. 
V.  Miller,  16  Nev.  327. 

6  Cassan  v.  Maxwell,  39  Minn. 
391,  40  N.  W.  357;  Price  v.  Doyle, 
34  Minn.  400,  26  N.  W.  14;  Spo- 
kane, &c.,  Lumber  Co.  v.  Loy,  21 
Wash.  501,  58  Pac.  672,  60  Pac. 
1119.  Simonson  v.  Grant,  36  Minn. 
439,  31  N.  W.  861.  The  existence 
of  unpaid  claims  against  the  con- 
tractors which  might  in  due  time 
be  enforced  against  the  building 
was  not  In  itself  a  violation  of  the 
indemnity  clause  in  the  contract. 
It  is  not  claimed  that  any  liens 
had  been  filed,  or  any  legal  pro- 
ceedings taken  to  enforce  the 
same,  or  that  he  might  not  have 
been  saved  harmless  if  he  has 
himself  stood  by  and  insisted  on 
the  terms  of  the  contract.  Well- 
er  v.  Eames,  15  Minn.  461;  Price 
v.  Doyle,  34  Minn.  400,  26  N.  W.  14. 

"^  Hawkins      v.       Mapes-Reeves 


Const.   Co.,   82   App.   Div.    (N.  Y.) 
72,  81  N.  Y.  Supp.   794. 

s  Chapman  v.  Eneberg,  95  ^lo. 
App.  127,  68  S.  W.  974;  Oberbeck 
V.  Mayer,  59  Mo.  App.  289;  Kie- 
M'it  V.  Carter,  25  Neb.  460,  41  N. 
W.  286.  Under  the  conditions  of 
some  bonds,  the  filing  of  a  lien 
will  not  be  a  breach  of  the  bond. 
Carson  Opera  House  Assn.  v.  Mil- 
ler, 16  Nev.  327;  Northern  Light 
Lodge  V.  Kennedy,  7  N.  Dak.  146, 
73  N.  W.  524. 

9  Brill  V.  De  Turk,  130  Cal.  241, 
62  Pac.  462;  Wlnfield  v.  Paulus, 
&c.,  Architectural  Co.,  68  Mo. 
App.  194. 

10  Brill  V.  De  Turk,  130  Cal. 
241,  62  Pac.  462. 

11  Jefferson  v.  IMcCarthy,  44 
Minn.   26,   46  N.  W.   140. 

12  Robinson  v.  Hagenkamp,  52 
Minn.   101,  53  N.  W.  813. 

13  Crowley  v.  United  States  Fi- 
delity, &c.,  Co.,  29  Wash.  268,  69 
Pac.  784. 


435 


INDEMNITY  BOND ESTOPPEL. 


171 


being-  filed  as  the  statute  required. ^^  Likewise  the  owner  will 
fail  if  he  paid  to  the  principal  contractor  otherwise  than  ac- 
cording to  the  principal  contract. ^^  As  a  matter  of  course, 
only  those  for  whose  benefit  a  bond  is  made  may  bring  an 
action  thereon.^*'  The  limit  of  recovery  is  the  penalty  of  the 
bond.^"  If  the  bond  is  given  to  secure  performance  of  a  con- 
tract, it  is  a  violation  of  it  if  not  performed  within  the  stipu- 
lated time.^^ 

§  171.  Indemnity  bond — Estoppel  of  surety — Retention  of 
money. — A  surety  on  a  bond  to  indemnify  the  owner,  in  order 
to  prevent  a  circuity  of  actions,  has  no  right  to  file  a  lien  to 
secure   himself   for   the   materials   furnished.^     If  the    statute 


14  McMenomy  v.  White,  115  Cal. 
339,  47  Pac.  109.  The  earlier  de- 
cisions of  Schallert-Ganahl  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Neal,  90  Cal.  213,  27 
Pac.  192,  held  to  the  contrary. 
Summerton  v.  Hanson,  117  Cal. 
252,  49  Pac.  135. 

15  Carson  Opera  House  Assn.  v. 
Miller,  16  Nev.  327. 

10  Pickle  Marble,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clay,  54  Neb.  661,  74  N.  W.  1062; 
Pioneer  Fire-Proof  &  Const.  Co.  v. 
McClay,  54  Neb.  663,  74  N.  W. 
1063. 

Cannot  be  deprived  of  right  by 
Owner. — Where  a  bond  is  given  to 
secure  the  performance  of  the 
conditions  of  a  contract  for  the 
erection  of  a  building,  the  obli- 
gation running  to  the  owner,  spe- 
cifically naming  him  and  all  oth- 
er persons  who  may  be  injured 
by  any  breach  of  the  conditions, 
a  subcontractor  injured  by  a 
breach  of  the  contract  cannot  be 
deprived  of  his  right  to  recover 
on  the  bond  by  an  act  of  the 
owner.     Getchell,  &c..  Lumber  & 


Mfg.  Co.  V.  Peterson,    (Iowa)   100 
N.   W.   550. 

17  Getchell,  &c..  Lumber  &  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Peterson,  (Iowa),  100  N. 
W.  550;  Beardsley  v.  Brown,  71 
111.  App.  199.  In  no  amount  if  the 
obligation  of  the  bond  is  not  in 
fact  broken.  Hurst  v.  Randall, 
68  Mo.  App.  507. 

18  Getchell,  &c..  Lumber  &  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Peterson,  (Iowa),  100  N.  W. 
550;  Pierson  v.  Jackman,  47  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  625,  62  N.  Y.  Supp. 
1145. 

1  California. — Blyth  v.  Torre, 
(Cal.)  38  Pac.  639;  Blyth  v.  Rob- 
inson,  104   Cal.   239,   37   Pac.   904. 

Indiana. — Closson  v.  Billman, 
161  Ind.  610,  69  N.  E.  449;  Mc- 
Henry  v.  Knickerbacker,  128  Ind. 
77,   27  N.  E.  430. 

PennsjiTania. — Rynd  v.  Pitts- 
burg Natatorium,  173  Pa.  St.  237, 
33  Atl.  1041,  37  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  551; 
Given  v.  German  Evangelical  Re- 
formed Church,  15  Phila.  (Pa.) 
300;  Haine  v.  Dambach,  4  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  633. 


§171] 


INDEMNITY    AGAINST   LIENS. 


436 


requires  the  contract  and  bond  to  be  filed  and  it  is  void  for 
not  being-  filed  as  the  statute  requires,  then  the  surety  will  not 
be  precluded  from  filing  or  asserting  his  lien  claim  rights.^  If 
the  bond  is  valid,  however,  the  extent  of  the  liability  thereon  is 
controlled  by  the  provisions  of  the  original  contract.^  If  the 
owner  sells  the  property  without  transferring  his  right  under 
the  bond  the  surety  may  set  up  his  lien,  but  in  such  case  the 
original  owner  may  set  up  his  bond  as  a  counterclaim  and  per- 
haps enjoin  collection  of  the  surety's  lien  until  paid.^  Where 
the  surety  assumes  the  duties  of  the  principal  contractor  he 
will  be  held  to  the  responsibility  attaching  to  the  contractor's 
position.^  It  is  not  an  unusual  thing  where  work  is  done 
upon  buildings  belonging  to  public  corporations  that  pro- 
vision is  made  either  by  contract  or  by  statute,  that  the  cor- 
poration retain  sufficient  money  to  meet  the  claims  of  all  sub- 
contractors.^    In  such  cases,  the  material  man  has  a  right  of 


Wasliingtoii. — Spears  v.  Law- 
rence, 10  Wash.  368,  38  Pac.  1049, 
45  Am.  St.  789. 

Wiscoiisin. — Interior  Woodwork 
Co.  V.  Prasser,  108  Wis.  557,  84 
N.  W.  833.  Where  a  building  con- 
tract provides  as  a  condition  pre- 
cedent to  the  final  payment  that 
there  shall  be  no  legal  claims 
against  the  contractor  for  work 
or  materials  furnished,  a  surety 
on  the  bond  of  the  contractor  can- 
not enforce  a  lien  for  work  or 
materials.  Gannon  v.  Central 
Presbyterian  Church,  173  Pa.  St. 
243,  33  Atl.  1043,  37  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.) 
553.     See  §§  49,  185. 

2  The  contract  being  void,  no 
cause  of  action  can  be  based  upon 
it  by  either  party.  The  bond  was 
attached  to  the  contract,  and  its 
conditions  based  upon  it,  and 
when  the  contract  fell,  the  bond 
was  left  without  support  and  nec- 


essarily fell  with  it.  Schallert- 
Ganahl  Lumber  Co.  v.  Neal,  90 
Cal.  213,  27  Pac.  192. 

3  Ganahl  v.  Weir,  130  Cal.  237, 
62  Pac.  512. 

4Hartman  v.  Berry,  56  Mo.  487; 
Valley  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Driessel,  13  Idaho  662,  93  Pac. 
765,  15  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.)  299n. 

5  Robinson  v.  Hagenkamp,  52 
Minn.  101,  53  N.  W.  813. 

6  Provision  in  a  building  con- 
tract that  20  per  cent,  of  the  con- 
tract price  shall  not  be  payable 
till  all  the  mechanics  and  mater- 
ial men  "shall  have,  in  writing, 
acknowledged  that  they  have 
been  fully  paid  by  the  contractors 
for  his  work  and  materials"  is  for 
the  benefit,  not  of  the  sub-con- 
tractors, but  the  owner,  though 
the  contract  contains  an  express 
waiver  of  right  to  file  liens.  Get- 
ty  V.    Pennsylvania   Inst,   for   In- 


437  INDEMNITY   BOND ACTION   ON.  [§  172 

action  directly  against  the  corporationJ  Where  the  contract 
provides  that  the  contractor  should  keep  the  building  free 
from  liens,  and  all  liens  have  been  paid,  the  balance  may  be  re- 
covered by  the  contractor  on  his  original  contract.^ 

§  172.  Indemnity  bond — Action  on. — An  action  on  an  in- 
demnity bond  is  one  at  law,  regulated  in  most  of  the  states  by  the 
code  of  civil  procedure,  and  the  petition  must  contain  the 
necessary  averments  to  sustain  the  cause  of  action.^  In  an 
action  by  a  subcontractor  against  the  sureties  on  the  con- 
tractor's bond,  it  is  not  necessary  to  set  out  the  terms  of  the 
principal  contract,  unless  this  contract  constitutes  a  necessary 
element  in  the  recovery  on  the  bond.^  If  the  bond  is  made  to 
the  owner  and  all  persons  who  may  be  injured  by  any  breach 
thereof,  this  will  inure  to  the  benefit  of  subcontractors  and 
they  may  maintain  an  action  if  their  claim  should  not  be  paid.^ 
In  actions  on  bonds  the  defendant  may  show  whatever  defense 
he  may  have,^  but  cannot  complain  of  the  result  of  his  own 
acts.^    If  the  plaintiff  should  recover,  he  may  include  the  inter- 

struction    of   Blind,    194      Pa.    St.  gas,   8   Tex.   Civ.   App.    669,   28    S. 

571,  45  Atl.   333.  W.   558. 

"  Nash     V.    Commonwealth,   174  •*  Ernst    v.    Cummings,    55    Cal. 

Mass.  335,  54  N.  E.  865.  179;    Foster    v.    Gaston,    123    Ind. 

8  Henry   v.   Hand,   36    Ore.    492,  96,  23  N.  E.  1092;  Brink  v.  Bart- 

59    Pac.    330;    Nash   v.    Common-  lett,  105  La.  336,  29  So.  958. 

wealth,    174   Mass.   335,    54   N.    E.  ]Vo     defense.— On     an       action 

865;    Getty  v.  Pennsylvania  Inst,  against  a  surety  for  a  breach  of 

for  Instruction  of  Blind,  194  Pa.  the  bond,  the  fact  that  the  plain- 

St.  571,  45  Atl.  333.  tiff,   during  the  work,  made  pay- 

1  Standiford  v.  Shideler,  26  Ind.  ments  to  the  contractor  exceed- 
App.  496,  60  N.  E.  168;  Glencoe  ing  85  per  cent,  of  the  total 
Lime,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Wind,  86  Mo.  amount  of  the  materials  and  la- 
App.  163.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  bor  already  furnished,  did  not 
Mechanics'  Liens,   §  317.  constitute    a   defense.     Graves   v. 

2  Conn  V.  State,  125  Ind.  514,  25  Merrill,  67  Minn.  463,  70  N.  W. 
N.  E.  443.  562.     Contractor   may    plead    that 

3  Getchell,  &c..  Lumber  &  Mfg.  owner  owes  him.  Wagner  v.  Ditte, 
Co.  V.  Peterson,  (Iowa),  100  N.  W.  2  Mo.  App.  254. 

550;    Jones   Lumber  Co.  v.  Ville-  5  That    it    was    subsequent    in 


§172] 


INDEMNITY    AGAINST   LIENS. 


438 


est.^  Under  a  statute  providing  that  "persons  severally  liable  upon 
the  same  obligation  or  instrument,  may  all  or  any  of  them  be 
included  in  the  same  action,"  in  an  action  on  a  bond  condi- 
tioned that  the  contractor  shall  pay  all  claims,  plaintiff  may 
join  all  or  one,  as  they  are  jointly  and  severally  liable.'  Under 
the  laws  of  Minnesota,  Gen.  St.  1878,  a  subcontractor  may 
bring  his  action  on  the  bond  without  taking  the  steps  necessary 
to  secure  a  lien  on  the  property.^  Before  the  sureties  may  re- 
cover from  the  principal,  it  is  not  necessary  that  they  should 
have  previously  paid  the  full  amount  of  the  penalty  named  in  the 
bond,  nor  show  that  a  notice  was  put  up  on  the  premises  where 
the  statute  requires  that,  or  that  the  original  contractor  has 
fully  performed  his  contract.^ 


point  of  date  of  the  loan  and  the 
mortgage  is  immaterial.  The 
plaintiff  has  a  right  to  take,  and 
the  defendant  the  right  to  give, 
additional  security;  and  the  ap- 
pellant had  the  right  to  put  him- 
self in  the  breach  as  a  surety. 
He  has  done  so,  and  has  no  cause 
to  complain  that  he  is  now  called 
upon  to  make  his  engagement 
good.  Union  Bldg.  &  Loan  Assn. 
V.  Hull,  135  Pa.  St.  565,  19  Atl. 
949. 

c  McFall     V.   Dempsey,   43     Mo. 
App.  369. 

7  Steffes  V.  Lemke,  40  Minn.  27, 
41  N.   W.    302. 

8  Bohn   V.   McCarthy,    29   Minn. 
23,  11  N.  W.  127. 


9  St.  Paul  Foundry  Co.  v.  Weg- 
mann,  40  Minn.  419,  42  N.  W. 
288.  The  measure  of  damages 
will  be  the  price  agreed  on  be- 
tween the  sub-contractor  and  the 
contractor. 

Prima  facie  eyidence. — A  state- 
ment of  accounts  rendered  by  the 
contractor  to  the  plaintiffs  is  ad- 
missible in  evidence  in  favor  of 
plaintiffs,  in  an  action  on  a  bond 
given  by  the  contractor  for  the 
protection  of  the  property  against 
liens,  when  followed  by  an  in- 
struction to  the  jury  that  it  is 
only  prima  facie  evidence  as 
against  the  surety.  Foster  v.  Gas- 
ton, 123  Ind.  96,  23  N.  E.  1092. 


CHAPTER   6. 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN  OR  RIGHT  TO  A  LIEN. 


Sec. 

173.  Waiver   of  right. 

174.  Express  waivier — Recovery  of 
judgment  on  debt — Execu- 
tion. 

175.  Implied  waiver. 

176.  Waiver,  by  taking  note. 

177.  Waiver — Maturity  of  note  as 
affecting. 

178.  Waiver — Taking  collateral 
security. 

179.  Waiver  by  taking  collateral 
— Cash  deposit — Mortgage. 

180.  Waiver    by    estoppel. 

181.  Waiver  as  affecting  subcon- 
tractors. 

182.  Waiver  by  taking  bond  or 
deposit. 

183.  Waiver  by  deposit — Effect 
and  operation  of. 

184.  Waiver — Liability  on  bond 
made  to  release  lien. 


Sec. 

185.  Waiver — Action  on  such 
bond. 

186.  Loss  of  lien  by  attending 
circumstances. 

187.  Loss  by  transfer  of  title. 

188.  Loss  by  sale,  delay  and 
merger. 

189.  Loss  or  extinguishment  of 
lien    by   release. 

190.  Loss  or  extinguishment  of 
lien — Discharge  in  bank- 
ruptcy. 

191.  Loss  by  payment  of  debt. 

192.  Loss  by  payment  of  debt — 
Subrogation. 

193.  Failure  to  satisfy  lien — Ohio 
statute. 

194.  Application  of  payments 
made  on  debt. 

195.  Payment  to  subcontractor  af- 
fecting lien  rights. 


§  173.  Waiver  of  right. — The  right  to  a  lien  may  be  waived 
by  the  parties  themselves  in  a  number  of  ways ;  by  express 
agreement  not  to  take  a  lien,  or  by  a  bond  that  no  lien  should 
be  filed;  or  by  payment  of  the  debt,  and  matters  of  that 
character.  There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  a  mechanic's 
lien  that  will  prevent  the  mechanic  from  waiving  his  right. ^ 


1  Kilpatrick  v.  Kansas  City,  &c., 
R.  Co.,  38  Neb.  620;  Matthews  v. 
Young,  40  N.  Y.  Supp.  27;  Davis 
V.  La  Crosse  Hospital  Assn.,  121 
Wis.  579,  99  N.  W.  351.  A  party 
cannot  be  heard  to  object  to  the 

439 


execution  of  a  contract  made  in 
his  favor.  Healy  v.  Wayne  Title 
&  Trust  Co.,  19  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
371.  In  order  to  waive  by  con- 
tract the  right  to  a  mechanic's 
lien,    there    must   be    an    express 


173] 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN   RIGHT. 


440 


The  right  to  a  mechanic's  lien  may  be  waived  or  relinquished 
by  not  relying  on  the  credit  of  the  building  for  payment  of 
the  claim.2  And  the  extent  of  the  waiver  so  far  as  it  may 
aiifect  subcontractors  is  determined  by  the  contract  of  the 
principal  contractor,  modified  somewhat  by  statutory  regu- 
lations in  the  different  states. ^  When  a  mechanic  has  fur- 
nished material  or  labor  coming  within  the  terms  of  the 
statute,  it  will  be  presumed  that  he  intends  to  avail  himself  of 
the  beneficial  provisions  of  the  statute.^  But  as  a  matter 
of  course  if  he  specifically  binds  himself  not  to  take  the  bene- 
fits of  the  statute  he  will  be  estopped  to  assert  to  the  con- 
trary.^ If  the  mechanic  should  be  prevented  from  fulfilling 
his  contract,  there  will  be  no  presumption  from  this  fact  that 
he  did  not  wish  a  lien.^  If  the  agreement  not  to  claim  a  lien 
has  become  fully  executed,  the  mechanic  is  bound.'^  A  stipu- 
lation in  the  principal  contract  that  no  subcontractor  should 
file  a  lien,  will  not  be  a  waiver  of  the  right  of  a  contractor 


covenant  resulting  by  implication 
from  the  language  used  so  plain 
that  a  mechanic  can  so  under- 
stand without  seeking  a  profes- 
sional interpretation  as  to  its  le- 
gal effect.  Concord  Apartment 
House  Co.  V.  O'Brien,  128  111.  App. 
437,  decree  affirmed,  228  111.  476, 
81  N.  E.  1076. 

2  See  §  21.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  207. 

3  See  §  57. 

4  McLaughlin  v.  Reinhart,  54 
Md.  71;  Matthews  v.  Young,  16 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  525,  40  N.  Y.  Supp. 
26. 

5  Knowles  v.  Baldwin,  125  Cal. 
224,  57  Pac.  988;  Sanders' 
Pressed-Brick  Co.  v.  Barr,  76 
Mo.  App.  380;  Long  v.  Caffrey,  93 
Pa.  St.  526;  Dwyer  v.  Salt  Lake 
City    Copper    Mfg.    Co.,    14    Utah 


339,  47  Pac.  311.  Such  as  looking 
exclusively  to  the  contractor. 
Isenman  v.  Fugate,  36  Mo.  App. 
166.  Written  release.  Hughes  v. 
Lansing,  34  Ore.  118,  55  Pac.  95. 
Not  to  file  a  claim  within  period 
allowed  by  law.  Scheid  v.  Rapp, 
121  Pa.  593,  15  Atl.  652.  Or  to 
look  to  someone  else  for  his  pay. 
Murray  v.  Earle,  13  S.  Car.  87. 
"Where  a  building  contract  pro- 
vides that  the  time  of  payment 
is  later  than  the  time  within 
which  the  lien  could  be  filed,  it 
is  waived.  Ritchie  v.  Grundy,  7 
Man.  L.  R.  532. 

6  Lydick  v.  Anderson,  188  Pa. 
St.    600,    41   Atl.    729. 

7  Irish  V.  Pulliam,  32  Neb.  24, 
48  N.  W.  963;  Gordon  v.  Fulmer, 
21  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  93,  7  Pa.  Dist.  368, 
28   Pittsb.   Leg.    J.    (Pa.)    317. 


441 


EXPRESS   WAIVER. 


[§174 


filing  a  lien  to  protect  himself.^  And  so  a  general  provision 
that  he  is  to  deliver  the  buildings  free  from  liens  is  not  a 
waiver  of  his  own  right.^  The  provision  not  to  claim  a  lien 
is  generally  considered  as  a  part  of  the  contract,  separate  and 
independent  of  the  payments  made  under  the  contract,  and 
the  failure  to  pay  as  stipulated  will  not  affect  the  agreement 
not  to  claim  a  lien.^^  So  it  is  held  that  the  fact  that  the  con- 
tractor has  agreed  not  to  file  a  lien  will  not  prevent  him 
from  purchasing  the  lien  of  another  and  enforcing  it.^i  Under, 
statutes  which  for  cause  permit  liens  to  be  struck  from  the 
files,  such  procedure  is  not  permitted  merely  because  the  con- 
tractor has  agreed  not  to  file  his  lien.^^ 

§  174.  Express  waiver — Recovery  of  judgment  on  debt — 
Execution. — Waivers  of  this  right  are  principally  of  two 
kinds,  express  and  implied.  A  stipulation  that  for  a  con- 
sideration, the  contractor  releases  and  waives  all  liens  or 
rights  to  a  lien  is  an  express  waiver.^     And  so  also  an  agree- 


8  A  waiver  of  the  right  to  a 
mechanic's  lien,  to  be  effective, 
must  be  either  express  or  must 
appear  from  necessary  implica- 
tion. It  should  be  so  plain  that 
every  mechanic  or  material  man 
though  of  limited  education,  can 
understand  it  at  a  glance,  and  not 
be  compelled  to  submit  its  inter- 
pretation to  a  lawyer.  Common- 
wealth Title  Ins.  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Ellis,  5   Pa.  Dist.  33. 

9  Davis  V.  La  Crosse  Hospital 
Assn.,  121  Wis.  579,  99  N.  W.  351. 

10  Purvis  V.  Brumbaugh's  Es- 
tate, 8  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  292;  Brazin- 
ski  V.  Neeves,  93  Wis.  567,  67  N. 
W.   1125. 

11  Hines  v.  Cochran,  44  Neb. 
12,  62  N.  W.  299. 

12  Connell  v.  Ker,  17  Lane.  Law 
Rev.    (Pa.)    206,  9   Pa.   Dist.   145; 


Ludowici  Roofing  Tile  Co.  v. 
Pennsylvania  Inst,  for  Blind,  116 
Fed.  661. 

1  Connecticut. — Weinberg  v.  Va- 
lente,  79  Conn.  247,  64  Atl.  337. 

Illinois. — Dymond  v.  Bruhns, 
101  111.  App.  425. 

Maryland. — Pinning  v.  Skipper, 
71  Md.  347,  18  Atl.  659. 

>'ew  Jersey. — Manhattan,  &c., 
Assn.  of  New  York  v.  Massareli 
(N.  J.  Eq.),  42  Atl.  284. 

Pennsylrania,  —  Stoneback  v. 
Waters,  198  Pa.  459,  48  Atl.  296. 
Carle  v.  Neeld,  10  Kulp  (Pa.)  101, 
18  Lane.  Law  (Pa.)  46,  7  North  Co. 
Pa.  324,  24  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  223;  Purvis 
V.  Brumbaugh's  Estate,  8  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  292.  Where  the  printed 
and  written  portions  of  a  contract 
are  repugnant  to  each  other,  the 
printed    form    must   yield    to    the 


§  174]  ANNULMENT   OR  AVOIDANCE   OF  LIEN    RIGHT. 


442 


ment  to  look  entirely  to  the  personal  credit  of  the  debtor,  or 
any  other  person,  is  an  express  waiver.^  Such  agreements 
are  always  to  be  applied,  and  taken  into  consideration  with 
the  principal  contract  then  in  mind  ;^  but  it  is  not  necessary 
that  the  principal  contract  be  then  executed  or  in  execution.'* 
An  agreement  containing  a  waiver  of  priority  to  submit  the 
matter  to  an  arbitration  is  not  binding  if  the  proceedings  on 
the  lien  are  commenced  before  the  award  is  made.^  But  it 
should  be  remembered  that  the  debt  and  the  lien  are  two 
separate  things,  and  that  a  recovery  of  a  personal  judgment 
on  the  debt  will  not  necessarily  be  a  waiver  of  the  lien.^  Of 
course  if  the  debt  is  paid  by  collection  of  the  judgment  or  other- 
wise, the  lien  is  satisfied."  Under  some  statutes  a  decree  of 
foreclosure  on  the  lien  can  not  be  had  until  the  judgment  is 
returned  "unsatisfied."^     Generallv  it  is  no  defense  that  in  a 


deliberate  written  expression. 
Commonwealth  Title-Insurance 
&  Trust  Co.  V.  Ellis,  192  Pa.  St. 
321,  43  Atl.  1034;  44  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)  427.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.    tit.    Mechanics'   Liens,    §  208. 

2  Bailey  v.  Adams,  14  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  201. 

3  Lee  V.  Hassett,  39  Mo.  App. 
67. 

4  Bush  Co.  V.  Barr,  76  Mo.  App. 
380.  A  party  may  waive  in  ad- 
vance the  benefits  of  the  mechan- 
ic's lien  law.  Keller  v.  Home 
Life  Ins.  Co.,  95  Mo.  App.  627,  69 
S.  W.  612. 

5  Paulsen  v.  Manske,  126  111.  72, 
18   N.   E.   275,   9   Am.   St.   532. 

•5  Arkansas. — Spence  v.  Etter,  8 
Ark.  69. 

California. — Germania  Building 
&  Loan  Assn.  v.  Wagner,  61  Cal. 
349. 


Colorado. — Marean  v.  Stanley, 
5  Colo.  App.  335,  38  Pac.  395. 

Mieliigan. — Kirkwood  v.  Hoxie, 
95  Mich.  62,  54  N.  W.  720,  35  Am. 
St.  549. 

New  Jersey. — Anderson  v.  Huff, 
49  N.  J.  Eq.  349,  23  Atl.  654;  Van- 
dyne  V.  Vanness,  5  N.  J.  Eq.  485. 

Pennsylvania. — Cream  v.  Mc- 
Fee,  2  Miles,  (Pa.)  214. 

West  Yirginia. — United  States 
Blowpipe  Co.  V.  Spencer,  40  W. 
Va.   698,  21   S.   E.   769. 

"  Taking  judgment  with  knowl- 
edge of  facts  releasing  lien  will 
estop  a  recovery  on  lien.  Carey- 
Lombard  Lumber  Co.  v.  Burnet, 
68  111.  App.  475.  Non-lienable  and 
lienable  items  blended.  Lambard 
V.  Pike,  33  Me.  141.  See  also 
Gambling  v.  Haight,  59  N.  Y.  354. 

8  Barbig  v.  Kick,  25  Civ.  Proc. 
(N.  Y.)  62,  35  N.  Y.  Supp.  676; 
Dutton  V.  Herman,  22  Mo.  App. 
458;  Contra,  Parmelee  v.  Tennes- 


443 


IMPLIED  WAIVER. 


[§175 


previous  suit   for  the  same  debt,   the  property  has   been   at- 
tached.^ 

§  175.  Implied  waiver. — An  implied  waiver  will  not  be  pre- 
sumed; the  intention  to  waive  must  be  made  clear  and  evi- 
dent/ from  all  circumstances  in  the  case.^  Making  a  new 
contract,^  accepting  inconsistent  security  for  claim,'*  a  submis- 
sion to  arbitration,^  an  inseparable  blending  of  lienable  and 
non-lienable  items,*'  an  acceptance  of  other  property  as  pay- 
ment of  the  claim,"  and  a  failure  to  preserve  the  lien  as  pro- 


see,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  81  Tenn.  600.  If 
the  property  is  misdescribed,  an- 
other action  may  be  main- 
tained giving  the  correct  descrip- 
tion. Gray  v.  Dunham,  50  Iowa 
170.  An  accepted  account  by  an 
asignee  will  permit  a  judgment 
on  a  lien.  Hayden  Slate  Co.  v. 
National  Cornice  «S;  Iron  Co.,  62 
Mo.  App.  569,  1  Mo.  App.  Rep'r, 
567. 

9  Angler  v.  Bay  State  Distilling 
Co.,  178  Mass.  163,  59  N.  E.  630. 
The  remedies  by  cumulation. 
Brennan  v.  Swasey,  16  Cal.  140, 
76  Am.  Dec.  507.  An  old  case 
holds  the  contrary.  Kirk  v.  Talia- 
ferro, 16  Miss.  754. 

1  Peck  V.  Bridwell,  10  Mo.  App. 
524;  Harris  v.  Youngstown 
Bridge  Co.,  93  Fed.  355,  35  C.  C. 
A.  341.  Within  the  scope  of  the 
principal  contract  the  contractor 
is  agent  of  the  owner.  Taylor  v. 
Dall  Lead  &  Zinc  Co.,  131  Wis. 
348,   111  N.  W.  490. 

2  Portsmouth  Iron  Co.  v.  Mur- 
ray, 38  Ohio  St.  323.  See  Dec.  & 
Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§209. 

3  Whitney  v.  Joslin,  108  Mass. 
103. 


■i  Southwark  Mortar  Co.  v.  Cas- 
sell,  15  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  330;  Kent 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Ward,  37  Wash.  60, 
79  Pac.  485;  Hooven,  Owens  & 
Rentschler  Co.  v.  John  Feather- 
stone's  Sons,  111  Fed.  81,  49  C.  C. 
A.  229.  Defendant  agreed  to  build 
certain  houses  for  plaintiff  for  a 
certain  amount  each;  the  latter 
agreeing  to  pay  one-half  when  a 
certain  portion  was  completed, 
and  the  balance  was  entirely  fin- 
ished. Not  inconsistent.  Osborne 
V.  Barnes,  179  Mass.  597,  61  N.  E. 
276. 

5  See  §  174.  New  York  Lumber 
&  Wood-working  Co.  v.  Schneider, 
15  Daly,  (N.  Y.)  15,  1  N.  Y.  Supp. 
441,  15  Civ.  Proc.  (N.  Y.)  30.  If, 
as  a  matter  of  law,  the  submis- 
sion of  a  claim  to  arbitration  op- 
erates as  a  waiver  of  the  claim 
for  a  lien,  the  fact  that  such 
award  was  set  aside  does  not 
change  the  legal  effect  of  the  act 
of  submission.  Shields  v.  Sorg, 
129  111.  App.  266,  judgment  af- 
firmed. Sorg  V.  Crandall,  233  111. 
79,  84  N.  W.  181. 

6  Rinzel  v.  Stumpf,  116  Wis. 
287,  93  N.  W.  36. 

7  Garrett  v.  Adams,    (Tenn.)   39 


§  175] 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN   RIGHT. 


444 


vided  by  law,  constitute  waivers  of  the  lien  right.^  But  an 
unexecuted  agreement  to  take  a  mortgage,^  or  bonds/"  or 
security  on  the  same  property/^  or  an  instruction  by  a  lienor 
to  pay  his  wages  to  another,  which  is  not  acted  upon,^^  or 
a  stipulation  in  the  contract  that  the  final  payment  shall  only 
be  made  when  the  evidence  shows  that  all  claims  are  paid,^^ 
or  a  stipulation  that  the  title  shall  remain  in  the  vendor  until 
paid  for,!'*  or  the  unauthorized  act  of  an  agent  in  signing  an 
obligation  for  the  faithful  performance  of  the  contract,!^  or 
the  acceptance  of  drafts  by  the  debtor,!^  or  a  mere  promise 
to  make  payments  in  a  certain  way,  have  been  held  not  to  consti- 
tute waivers.!'^  If  proceedings  are  brought  to  foreclose  the 
property,  and  the  lienor  interpleads  and  demands  that  his 
claim  be  paid  out  of  the  fund,  this  will  annul  his  lien  on  the 
property  and  transfer  his  right  to  the  fund,!^  the  general 
rule  being  that  a  lienor  is  not  afifected  by  the  proceedings  in 
court  unless  he  has  been  made  a  party.^^     An  extension  of 


S.  W.  730. 

8  Wheelock  v.  Hull,  124  Iowa 
752,  100  N.  W.  863;  Consolidated 
Engineering  Co.  v.  Crowley,  105 
La.  605,  30  So.  222. 

9  Barnard  &  Leas  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Galloway,  5  S.  Dak.  205,  58  N. 
W.   565. 

10  Baumhoff  v.  St.  Louis,  &c., 
R.  Co.,  171  Mo.  120,  71  S.  W.  156; 
Bickel  V.  James,  7  Watts   (Pa.)   9. 

11  See  §  176.  Chapman  v.  Brew- 
er, 43  Neb.  890,  62  N.  W.  320,  47 
Am.  St.  779. 

12  Dowd  V.  Dowd,  126  Mich. 
649,  86  N.  W.  128,  8  Det.  Leg.  N. 
196. 

13  Poirer  v.  Desmond,  177  Mass. 
201,  58  N.  E.  684;  Seeman  v.  Bie- 
mann,  108  Wis.  365,  84  N.  W.  490. 

14  Salt  Lake  Hardware  Co.  v. 
Chainman  Mining  &  Electric  Co., 
128   Fed.    509;    Hooven,   Owens   & 


Rentschler  Co.  v.  John  Feather- 
stone's  Sons,  111  Fed.  81,  49  C. 
C.  A.  229,  also  99  Fed.  180;  Elwood 
State  Bank  v.  Mock,  40  Ind.  App. 
685,  82  N.  E.  1003  (conditional 
sale.) 

15  Bullard  v.  De  Groff,  59  Neb. 
783,  82  N.  W.  4. 

16  Bradford  Neill  &  Mahnke 
Const.  Co.,  76  111.  App.  488;  Beach 
V.  Wakefield,  107  Iowa  567,  76  N. 
W.  688. 

1"  Reynolds  v.  Manhattan  Trust 
Co.,  83  Fed.  593,   27  C.  C.  A.   620. 

18  Idaho  Gold  Min.  Co.  v.  Win- 
chell,  6  Idaho  729,  56  Par    533. 

19  Forbearance  to  bring  snit. — 
An  agreement  by  the  holder  of  ?^ 
mechanic's  lien,  with  a  person 
claiming  a  mechanic's  lien  on  the 
same  property,  that  in  considera- 
tion of  the  latter  forbearing  to 
bring  suit  to  foreclose  his  lien,  it 


445 


WAIVER  BY  TAKING  NOTE. 


[§176 


time  of  payment  will  not  ordinarily  constitute  a  waiver  of  the 
lienj^i^  unless  it  extends  beyond  the  time  limit  for  filing-  a 
lien.2i  An  unexecuted  agreement  or  extension  will  in  no  case 
amount  to  a  waiver.22 

§  176.  Waiver,  by  taking  note. — Some  few  courts  have 
held  that  the  taking  of  a  note  operates  as  a  payment  of  the 
debt  and  waives  the  lien.^  But  the  great  weight  of  au- 
thority now  is,  that  the  taking  of  a  note  is  neither  a  waiver  of 
the   lien  nor  a  payment   of  the   debt,^   unless  it  is   expressly 


shall  be  prior  to  that  of  the  form- 
er, concedes  the  validity  of  the 
latter  lien,  and  estops  the  holder 
of  the  former  from  thereafter  at- 
taching it.  Cain  v.  Texas  Build- 
ing &  Loan  Assn.,  21  Texas  Civ. 
App.  61,  51  S.  W.  879;  Elwell  v. 
Morrow,  28  Utah  278,  78  Pac.  605. 
Praying  in  Alternative.  —  The 
holder  of  a  claim  for  material 
used  in  a  building  whose  lien  was 
duly  registered  did  not  waive  his 
right  to  a  privilege  by  praying, 
in  the  alternative,  that  his  ma- 
terial be  separately  appraised, 
and,  if  he  was  not  allowed  the 
privilege,  that  he  be  given  a 
vendor's  lien  on  such  material. 
Fudickar  v.  Monroe  Athletic  Club, 
49  La.  Ann.  1457,  22  So.  381. 

20  Chisholm  v.  Williams,  128  111. 
115,  21  N.  E.  215;  Paddock  v. 
Stout,  121  111.  571,  13  N.  E.  182; 
Stout  V.  Sower,  22  111.  App.  65; 
Chisholm  v.  Randolph,  21  111.  App. 
312. 

21  See  §177. 

22  Mortgage  not  given.  Gard- 
ner V.  Hall,  29  111.  277.  The  fact 
that  the  contract  extended  the 
time  of  payment  beyond  a  year 
from  the  time  the  work  was  done 


does  not  prevent  a  mechanic's 
lien  from  attaching,  where  that 
extension  was  conditional  upon 
the  giving  of  a  note  and  securing 
it  by  a  mortgage,  which  was  never 
done.  Cunningham  v.  Fisher, 
(Ky.)  48  S.  W.  993.  Note  not 
given.  Globe  Light  &  Heat  Co.  v. 
Doud,  47  Mo.  App.  439;  Van  Stone 
V.  Stillwell  &  Bierce  Mfg.  Co.,  142 
U.  S.  128,  12  Sup.  Ct.  181,  35  L. 
ed.  961.  Note  not  delivered.  Lutz 
V.  Ey,  3  E.  D.  Smith,  621,  3  Abb. 
Pr.   (N.  Y.)   475. 

1  Belmont  Farm  v.  Dobbs  Hard- 
ware Co.,  124  Ga.  827,  53  S.  E. 
312;  Johns  v.  Bolton,  12  Pa.  339; 
Hill  V.  Witmer,  2  Phila.  (Pa.)  72; 
Edmonds  v.  Tiernan,  21  S.  C.  R. 
(Canada)  406.  Where  a  material 
man,  after  furnishing  lumber  and 
mill  work  for  a  house,  takes  the 
owner's  note  with  a  third  person 
as  surety,  he  thereby  waives  his 
right  to  a  mechanic's  lien.  Lyon 
&  Sons  Manufg.  Co.  v.  Equitable 
Loan  &  Investment  Assn.,  174  111. 
31,  50  N.  E.  1006.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  211 
See  ante,  §  175. 

2  Connecticut. — Hopkins  v.  For- 
rester, 39  Conn.  351. 


§  176] 


ANNULMENT   OR   AVOIDANCE   OF  LIEN    RIGHT. 


446 


agreed  that  it  shall  have  that  effect/^  or  there  is  a  manifest 
intention  that  it  shall  so  operate.'*  Some  statutes  have  es- 
pecially provided  that  the  taking  of  a  promissory  note  shall 
not  be  taken  as  a  waiver  of  the  lien,  and  it  is  held  that  even 
if  a  receipt  in  full   is  given,   that  unless  the  note  is  paid  it 


Illinois. — Kendall  v.  Fader,  199 
111.  294,  65  N.  E.  318;  Brady  v. 
Anderson,  24  111.  110. 

Iowa. — Logan  v.  Attix,  7  Iowa 
77;  Scott  V.  Ward,  4  G.  Greene 
(Iowa)  112. 

Kentucky. — Gere  v.  Gushing, 
5  Bush.  (Ky.)  304;  Laviolette  v. 
Redding,  4  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  81; 
Mlvelaz  v.  Johnson,  124  Ky.  251, 
98   S.  W.  1020,   30  Ky.  L.  389. 

Louisiana. — Turpin  v.  His  Cred- 
itors, 9  Mart.   (O.  S.)   562. 

Minnesota. — Milwaiu  v.  Sanford, 
3  Minn.   147. 

]Ve5)raska. — Livesey  v.  Hamilton, 
47  Neb.  644,  66  N.  W.  644;  Barna- 
cle V.  Henderson,  42  Neb.  169,  60 
N.   W.   382. 

'Se'w  York. — Linneman  v.  Bie- 
ber,  85  Hun  (N.  Y.)  477,  33  N.  Y. 
Supp.  129;  Jones  v.  Moores,  67 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  109,  22  N.  Y.  Supp. 
53;  B.  Keogh  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Eis6n- 
berg,  7  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  79,  27  N.  Y. 
Supp.  356. 

Ohio. — Victoria  Bldg.  Assn.  v. 
Kelsey,  9  Ohio  Dec.  123,  11  Wkly. 
L.  Bull.  38. 

Pennsjlvania,  —  Odd  Fellows' 
Hall  V.  Masser,  24  Pa.  507,  64  Am. 
Dec.  675;  Rush  v.  Fisher,  8  Phila. 
(Pa.)  44;  Kinsley  v.  Buchanan,  5 
Watts,  (Pa.)  118;  Walter  &  Sons 
V.  Powell,  13  Dist.    (Pa.)    667. 

3  Georgia, — Belmont  Farm  v. 
Dobbs  Hardware  Co.,  124  Ga.  827, 
53    S.   E.   312. 


South  Dakota, — Hill  v.  Alliance 
Bldg.  Co.,  6  S.  Dak.  160,  60  N.  W. 
752,  55  Am.  St.  819. 

Texas.— Jones  v.  White,  72  Tex. 
316,  12  S.  W.  179. 

Utah.— Doane  v.  Clinton,  2  Utah 
417. 

Wisconsin. — Lentz  v.  Eimmer- 
mann,  119  Wis.  492,  97  N.  W.  181. 

•i  Alabama. — Lane  &  Bodley  Co. 
V.  Jones,  79  Ala.  156;  Montandon 
V.  Deas,  14  Ala.  33,  48  Am.  Dec. 
84. 

loiva.  —  Greene  v.  Ely,  2  G. 
Greene,    (Iowa)    508. 

Kentucky. — Gilbert  v.  INIoody, 
18  Ky.  L.  312,  36  S.  W.  523. 

Maine.  —  Bryant  v.  Grady,  98 
Me.  389,  57  Atl.  92. 

Massachusetts.  —  McLean  v. 
Wiley,  176  Mass.  233,  57  N.  E. 
347.  The  right  to  a  materialman's 
lien  is  not  waived  by  the  accept- 
ance of  a  note  for  the  owner's  in- 
debtedness, with  the  understand- 
ing that  the  lienor  shall  hold  the 
note  until  the  owner  can  collect 
some  money  and  make  a  payment 
on  account,  when  it  is  to  be  sur- 
rendered; no  payment  having 
been  made,  and  the  note  being 
produced  for  cancellation  at  the 
trial  of  the  action  to  enforce  the 
lien.  Darlington  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Harris,  107  Mo.  App.  148,  80  S. 
W.  688. 


447 


WAIVER MATURITY  OF  NOTE. 


[§177 


will  not  waive  the  right  to  the  lien.'^  And  even  where  the 
statute  requires  that  the  lien  statement  shall  contain  a  de- 
scription of  the  note,  if  any  was  given,  this  does  not  change 
the  rule  and  make  it  constitute  a  waiver. ^  As  said  before, 
if  it  is  the  intention  of  the  parties  that  the  note  shall  be  in 
payment  of  the  claim,'^  and  is  received  as  such^  and  in  dis- 
charge of  the  debt,  then  as  a  matter  of  course  the  lien  right 
is  lost.^  But  the  mere  taking  of  the  note  will  not  raise  a  pre- 
sumption of  the  intention  to  waive  the  claim  or  the  right  to 
the  lien.^*^  In  order  for  the  taking  of  a  note  to  have  the 
effect  of  a  waiver,  an  intention  to  that  affect  must  be  clearly 
shown.  ^1 

§  177.  Waiver — Maturity  of  note  as  affecting. — The  time 
of  the  maturity  of  the  note  is  not  material,  so  long  as  the 
maturity   is   within   the   time   limit   in  which   the   lien   can   be 


sDistrict  of  Columbia.  —  Smith 
V.  Johnson,  2  MacArthur  (D.  C.) 
481. 

ludiana. — Goble  v.  Gale,  7 
Blackf.  (Ind.)  218,  41  Am.  Dec. 
219. 

Nebraska. — Hoagland  v.  Lusk, 
33  Neb.  376,  50  N.  W.  162,  29  Am. 
St.  485. 

New  York. — Althause  v.  War- 
ren, 2  E.   D.  Smith   (N.  Y.)    657. 

Rhode  Island.  —  Wheeler  v. 
Schroeder,  4  R.  I.  383. 

f>  Bernsdorf  v.  Hardway,  7  Ohio 
Cir.   Ct.    378. 

■7  Bender  v.  Stettinius,  10  Ohio 
Dec.  186,  19  W.  L.  Bull.  163;  Don- 
ovan V.  Frazier,  15  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)    521,   44   N.    Y.   Supp.   533. 

sCrooks  V.  Finney,  39  Ohio  St. 
57. 

oVason  v.  Bell,  53  Ga.  416. 

lOMeek  v.  Parker,  63  Ark.  367, 
38  S.  W.  900;  Van  Court  v.  Bush- 


nell,  21  111.  624;  East  v.  Ferguson, 
59  Ind.  169;  Hersh  &  Son  v.  Car- 
men, 51  Neb.  784,  71  N.  W.  713; 
Smith  V.  Parsons,  37  Neb.  677. 
Contra,  Negotiable  note.  Teal  v. 
Spangler,  72  Ind.  380. 

11  Paddock  V.  Stout,  121  111.  571, 
13  N.  E.  182;  Jones  v.  Shawhan, 
4  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  257;  Wheeler 
V.   Schroeder,   4  R.   I.   383. 

Receipt  in  full. — A  party  having 
a  builder's  lien  took  notes  for 
the  amount  of  his  claim,  and  gave 
a  receipt  as  follows:  "Received 
of  P.  &  B.  two  notes  (describing 
them)  in  full."  Quaere,  whether 
the  lien  was  not  discharged  there- 
by. The  court  inclined  to  the 
opinion  that,  in  the  absence  of 
proof  that  the  receipt  did  not  ex- 
press the  real  understanding  of 
the  parties,  it  must  be  taken  to 
mean  that  the  notes  were  received 
in   payment,   and   to   be    regarded 


177] 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE   OF  LIEN   RIGHT. 


448 


perfected. 1  If  the  note  is  not  due  until  after  the  time  has 
expired  within  which  a  lien  claim  can  be  filed  or  asserted, 
then  it  will  necessarily  act  as  a  waiver  of  the  lien  right.2 
And  this  is  true,  even  where  the  statute  declares  that  the 
taking  of  the  note  shall  not  amount  to  a  waiver  of  the  lien.^ 
But  the  taking  of  such  a  note  will  not  be  a  waiver  if  the 
contract  expressly  provides  that  the  taking  of  the  note  is 
not  intended  as  a  waiver  of  the  lien  right.'*  If  some  of  the 
notes  taken,  mature  within  the  time  limit,  and  others  do 
not,  the  lien  right  will  not  be  waived  especially  as  to  the 
debt  evidenced  by  the  notes  due  within  the  time  limit. ^  The 
fact  that  the  note  is  to  bear  interest,  is  not  material  on  the 


as  discharging  the  lien.  Rose  v. 
Persse    &   Brooks    Paper    Works, 

29  Conn.  256. 

^Alabama. — Hines  v.  Chicago 
Bldg.  &  Mfg.  Co.,  115  Ala.  637,  22 
So.  160;  Leftwich  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Florence  Mut.  Bldg.,  Loan  &  Sav- 
ings Assn.,  104  Ala.  584,  18  So. 
48. 

Minnesota. — McKeen  v.  Hasel- 
tine,  46  Minn.  426,   49   N.  W.  195. 

Mississippi. — Ehlers  v.  Elder,  51 
Miss.  495. 

Missouri.  —  Kaufman-Wilkinson 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Christophel,  59 
Mo.  App.  80;  Ashdown  v.  Woods, 
31  Mo.  465;   McMurray  v.  Taylor, 

30  Mo.  263,  77  Am.  Dec.  611. 
Nebraska. — Smith  &  Son  Co.  v. 

Parsons,  37  Neb.  677,  56  N.  W. 
326. 

jVew  Jersey.  —  McPherson  v. 
Walton,  15  Stew.  (N.  J.  Eq.)  282, 
11    Atl.    21. 

>'ew  York. — Miller  v.  Moore,  1 
E.  D.  Smith   (N.  Y.)   739. 

New  Mexico. — Mountain  Elec- 
tric Co.  V.  Miles,  9  N.  Mex.  512, 
56   Pac.    284. 


Ohio. — Victoria  Bldg.  Assn.  No. 
2  V.  Kelsey,  9  Ohio  Dec.  123,  11 
Wkly.   L.   Bull.   38. 

West  Virginia, — Bodley  v.  Den- 
mead,  1  W.  Va.  249;  Cushwa  v. 
Improvement,  Loan  &  Building 
Assn.  45  W.  Va.  490,  32  S.  E.  259. 

Wisconsin. — Schmidt  v.  Gilson, 
14  Wis.  339;  Bailey  v.  Hull,  11 
Wis.  302,  78  Am.  Dec.  706.  Even 
where  new  notes  are  given,  etc. 
Howe  V.  Hindred,  42  Minn.  433, 
44  N.  W.  311.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens  §  211. 

2Lane  &  Bodley  Co.  v.  Jones, 
79  Ala.  156;  Quinby  v.  City  of 
Wilmington,  5  Houst.  (Del.)  26; 
Green  v.  Fox,  7  Allen  (Mass.)  85; 
Kunkle  v.  Reeser,  5  Ohio  N.  P. 
401. 

SFlenniken  v.  Liscoe,  64  Minn. 
269,    66    N.   W.    979. 

4Butler-Ryan  Co.  v.  Silvey,  70 
Minn.  507,  73  N.  W.  406. 

sPryor  v.  White,  16  B.  ]\Ion. 
(Ky.)  605;  Dey  v.  Anderson,  39 
N.   J.   L.   199. 


449 


WAIVER PROMISSORY    NOTE    AS. 


[§177 


question  of  waiver.''  And  if  the  payee  sells  the  note, 
this  will  not  necessarily  operate  as  a  waiver,  if  he  again  ac- 
quires it,*'''  or  retains  a  liability  thereon,  within  the  time  limit 
of  filing  the  lien  claim.'^  Likewise  if  a  forged  note  or  bond 
is  given,  this  being  invalid  will  not  affect  the  lien  right.^  And 
this  is  true  even  where  the  payee  at  the  time  the  notes  are 
sold,  credits  the  proceeds  of  the  same  on  the  account.^  But 
if  the  payee  should  bring  an  action  on  the  lien,  where  a  note 
has  been  given,  it  will  be  incumbent  upon  him  to  have  the 
note  in  his  possession  or  account  for  it  at  the  time  of  trial 
or  he  will  not  be  entitled  to  a  decree.^*^     And  if  the  note  has 


GBrady  v.  Anderson,  24  111.  110. 

fia  Kansas. — Bashor  v.  Nordyke 
&  ]\Iarmon  Co.,  2.5  Kan.  222. 

Keiitiicky. — Graham  v.  Holt, 
4  B.  Mon.   (Ky.)   61. 

Ohio. — Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  Sow- 
den,  55  Ohio  St.  332,  45  N.  E.  320. 

West  Tirginia. — Cushwa  v.  Im- 
provement, Loan  &  Building 
Assn.,  45  W.  Va.  490.  32  S.  W. 
259. 

Federal. — Wisconsin  Trust  Co. 
V.  Robinson  &  Cary  Co.,  68  Fed, 
778,  15  CCA  668,  32  U.  S.  App.  435. 

7  Swain  v.  Barrow,  11  La.  Ann. 
547;  Davis  v.  Parsons,  157  Mass. 
584,  32  N.  E.  1117;  Milwain  v. 
Sanford,  3  Minn.  147;  Edwards  v. 
Derrickson,  4  Dutch  (N.  J.  Law) 
39. 

8  Breed  v.  Gardner,  187  Mass. 
300,  72  N.  E.  983. 

»  Indiana. — Schneider  v.  Kolt- 
hoff,  59  Ind.  568. 

Iowa. — German  Bank  v.  Schloth, 
59  Iowa  316,  13  N.  W.  314;  Haw- 
ley  V.  Warde,  4  G.  Greene,  (Iowa) 
36. 

South  Dakota, — Hill  v.  Alliance 

29 


Bldg.  Co.,  6  S.  Dak.  160,  60  N.  W. 
752,  55  Am.  St.  819. 

Federal. — Beers  v.  Knapp,  5 
Ben  (U.  S.)  104,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1232.  Some  Indiana  decisions 
seem  to  hold  that  where  a  nego- 
tiable note  is  taken  and  disposed 
of,  the  presumption  is  that  it  was 
taken  in  payment.  East  v.  Fer- 
guson,  59    Ind.   169. 

1'^  .Irkausas. — Meek  v.  Parker, 
63  Ark.  367,  38  S.  W.  900. 

Illinois.— Kankakee  Coal  Co.  v. 
Crane  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.,  128  111.  627; 
Clement  v.  Newton,  78  111.  427; 
Bayard  v.  McGraw,  1  111.  App. 
134. 

Iowa. — German  Bank  v.  Schloth, 
59   Iowa  316,  13   N.  W.   314. 

Pennsylvania.— :\IcDuffee  v.  Rea, 
13  Pa.  Co.  Ct.   (Pa.)   261. 

Tennessee. — Garrett  v.  Adams, 
(Tenn.)   39  S.  W.  730. 

"West  Virginia. — Cushwa  v.  Im- 
provement, Loan  &  Building 
Assn.,  45  W.  Va.  490,  32  S.  E.  259. 
Where  the  statutes  only  allov/  the 
taking  of  the  note  to  be  a  waiv- 
er when  express  agreement  is 
shown,  a  decree  may     be     given 


178] 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN   RIGHT. 


450 


been  put  in  judgment,  the  payee  must  show  that  the  judg- 
ment has  not  been  satisfied. ^^  The  same  rule  is  appHed  to 
subcontractors  taking  a  note  of  the  contractor.  Generally  the 
taking  of  such  a  note  is  not  a  waiver  of  the  subcontractor's 
rights  on  his  lien.^^  There  is  a  waiver  in  all  cases  where  the 
identity  of  the  lien  claim  is  gone.^^ 

§  178.  Waiver — Taking  collateral  security. — Whether  or 
not  the  taking  of  collateral  security  by  the  contractor  will 
amount  to  a  waiver  of  his  lien  is  a  question  upon  which  the 
courts  are  not  in  accord.  Quite  a  number  hold  that  it  will/ 
but  it  is  believed  that  the  weight  of  opinion  is  that  unless 
there  is  a  manifest  intention  between  the  parties  that  it  shall 
so   operate,   this   will   not   be   equivalent   to   a   waiver.^     And 


even  though  the  note  is  not  in 
court.  Blake  v.  Pitcher,  46  Md. 
453. 

iiTeaz  V.  Chrystie,  2  E.  D. 
Smith,  (N.  Y.)  621,  12  Abb.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)    109. 

12  Illinois. — Meeks  v.  Sims,  84 
111.  422. 

Louisiana, — Whitla  v.  Taylor,  6 
La.  Ann.  4S0. 

Michigan. — Smalley  v.  Ashland 
Brown-Stone  Co.,  114  Mich.  104, 
72  N.  W.  29. 

jVIissouri. — Western  Brass  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Boyce,  74  Mo.  App.  343; 
Compound  Lumber  Co.  v.  Fehl- 
hammer  Planing  Mill  Co.,  59  Mo. 
App.  661. 

Xew  York. — Bates  v.  Trustees 
of  Masonic  Hall  &  Asylum  Fund, 
7  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  609,  27  N.  Y. 
Supp.  951;  Moran  v.  Murray  Hill 
Bank,  26  Jones  &  S.  199,  9  N.  Y, 
Supp.   715. 


>'ew  Mexico. — INIountain  Elec- 
tric Co.  V.  Miles,  9  N.  Mex.  512, 
56  Pac.  284. 

Ohio. — Kunkle  v.  Reeser,  5  Ohio 
N.  P.  401.     See  ante,  §176. 

13  Schulenberg  v.  Robison,  5 
Mo.  App.   561. 

1  Illinois. — Kendall  v.  Fader, 
199  111.  294,  65  N.  E.  318;  Kinzey 
V.  Thomas,  28  111.  502;  Equitable 
Loan,  &c.,  Assn.  v.  Lyon  &  Sous' 
Lumber,  &c.,  Co.,  72  111.  App.  489. 

Indiana. — Farman  v.  Ratcliff, 
Wils.    (Ind.)    145. 

Kentucky. — Andrews  v.  Ken- 
tucky Citizens'  Building  &  Loan 
Assn.,  Assignee,  23  Ky.  L.  2418, 
67  S.  W.  826.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.    tit.    Mechanics'   Liens,    §  212. 

2  Halsted  &  Harmount  Co.  v. 
Arick,  76  Conn.  382,  56  Atl.  628; 
Union  Stock  Yards  State  Bank  v. 
Baker,  42  Neb.  880,  61  N.  W.  91; 
McKeen  v.  Haseltine,  46  Minn. 
431. 


451 


WAIVER — COLLATERAL  SECURITY. 


[§178 


especially  is  this  true  where  the  enforcement  of  the  lien  will 
not  affect  the  vested  rights  of  any  one.^  But  even  the  courts 
that  hold  that  the  taking  of  collateral  security  waives  the  lien, 
require  that  the  security  be  actually  given  and  that  a  mere 
agreement  to  give  will  not  have  the  efifect  of  a  waiver.-*  And 
they  also  hold  that  the  security  taken  must  be  intended  as 
collateral.^  An  effort  to  secure  a  more  specific  and  exclusive 
lien  on  the  same  property  will  not  be  considered  as  collateral.^ 
A  waiver  cannot  be  urged  where  the  lienor'  is  induced  by 
the  fraud  of  the  debtor  to  take  security  which  proves  to  be 


3  Bristol  -  Goodson  Electric 
Light,  fee,  Co.  V.  Bristol  Gas,  Elec- 
tric Light,  &c.,  Co.,  99  Tenn.  371, 
42  S.  W.  19;  Firth  v.  Rehfeldt, 
30  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  326,  51  N. 
Y.  Supp.  980,  affirmed  164  N.  Y. 
588,   58  N.  E.   1087. 

4  Weber  v.  Bushnell,  171  111. 
587,  49  N.  E.  728;  Firth  v.  Reh- 
feldt, 30  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  326,  51 
N.  Y.  Supp.  980;  affirmed,  164  N. 
Y.  588,  58  N.  E.  1087;  Role- 
witch  V.  Harrington,  20  S.  Dak. 
375,  107  N.  W.  207.  Plain- 
tiff furnished  material  for  a  house, 
relying  on  orders  drawn  in  his 
favor  by  the  owner  upon  defend- 
ant building  and  loan  association, 
which  orders  were  accepted  by 
defendant's  agent,  conditioned 
upon  defendant's  making  a  loan 
on  the  property.  Such  loan  W5\s 
afterwards  made,  but  defendant 
refused  to  pay  the  orders  on  the 
ground  that  the  money  had  been 
paid  to  the  owner.  The  defend- 
ant had  no  standing  in  equity  to 
claim  that  plaintiff  had  waived 
his  right  to  a  mechanic's  lien  by 
accepting  the  independent  secur- 
ity.     Southern   Building   &   Loan 


Assn.  V.  Bean,  Tex.  Civ.  App.  49 
S.  W.  910. 

5  Atlantic  Trust  Co.  v.  Carbon- 
dale  Coal  Co.,  99  Iowa  234,  68  N. 
W.  697;  Taliaferro  v.  Stevenson, 
58  N.  J.  L.  165,  33  Atl.  383. 

6  What  is  collateral. — "It  only 
remains  to  inquire  whether  from 
the  facts  stated  in  the  petition, 
and  especially,  in  view  of  the 
promise  alleged  to  have  been 
made  by  Sherman,  plaintiff  waived 
his  lien?  We  think  not.  A  party 
who  takes  collateral  security  on 
the  same  contract,  is  not  entitled 
to  a  mechanic's  lien.  Code,  §  1009. 
This  means  either  a  separate  ob- 
ligation attached  to  the  contract 
named,  to  guaranty  its  perform- 
ance; or  it  may  be  the  transfer 
of  property  or  of  other  contracts, 
to  insure  the  performance  of  the 
principal  agreement.  Mervin  v. 
Sherman,  9  Iowa  331.  Notes  of  a 
third  person  are  "collateral  se- 
curity," within  Comp.  Laws,  S. 
Dak.  §  5468,  providing  that  no  per- 
son is  entitled  to  a  mechanic's 
lien  who  takes  collateral  security 
in  the  same  contract.  Allis  Co. 
V.  Madison  Electric  Light,  Heat  & 


178] 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE   OF  LIEN   RIGHT. 


452 


worthless.'^  Some  states  have  statutes  providing  that  the 
taking  of  collateral  security  shall  not  operate  as  a  waiver 
unless  made  so  by  express  agreement.^  The  retention  by  the 
seller  of  the  title  of  materials  until  paid  for  is  not  a  w^aiver 
of  the  lien  rights. ^  And  as  a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that 
the  taking  of  a  chattel  mortgage  on  the  materials  will  not  be 
a  waiver  of  the  lien  riglit/"^  unless  the  surrounding  circum- 
stances are  such  that  it  is  manifest  that  the  material  man  has 
intended  to  abandon  his  lien  right. ^^  Of  course  if  the  taking 
of  such  collateral  security  will  prevent  the  mechanic  from  en- 
forcing his  lien,  as  where  the  collateral  is  not  enforceable  until 
after  the  lien  right  has  expired,  then,  of  course,  it  will  be  con- 
sidered as  a  waiver. 

§  179.  Waiver  by  taking  collateral — Cash  deposit — Mort- 
gage.— The  acceptance  of  the  note  of  a  third  person  will 
not  in  itself  be  a  waiver  of  the  lien.^  Neither  will  the  in- 
dorsement,^  or  guaranty  of  the  owner's  note  by  a  third  per- 
son  have   that   effect,   according   to   the   decision   of  at   least 


Power  Co.,  9  S.  D.  459,  70  N.  W. 
650;  Clark  v.  Moore,  64  111.  273. 

"i  Norton  v.  Hope  Milling,  Min- 
ing &  Lumber  Co.,  19  Ky.  L.  382, 
40  S.  W.  688. 

8  Maryland  Brick  Co.  v.  Spil- 
man,  76  Md.  337,  25  Atl.  297,  25 
Am.  St.  431,  17  L.  R.  A.  599. 

9  Micliigan. — Peninsular  Gener- 
al Electric  Co.  v.  Norris,  100  Mich. 
496,  59  N.  W.  151. 

jVebraska, — Henry  &  Coatsworth. 
Co.  V.  Fisherdick,  37  Neb.  207,  55 
N.  W.  643;  Great  Western  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Hunter,  15  Neb.  32,  16  N. 
W.  759. 

Wisconsin. — Cooper  v.  Cleghorn, 
50  Wis.  113,  6  N.  W.  491. 

Federal.  —  Case     Mfg.     Co.    v. 


Smith,    40    Fed.    339,    5    L.    R.    A. 
231. 

10  Howe  V.  Kindred,  42  Minn. 
433,  44  N.  W.  311;  Hoagland  v. 
Lusk,  33  Neb.  376,  50  N.  W.  162, 
29  Am.   St.  485. 

11  Kendall  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Rundle, 
78   Wis.   150,   47   N.   W.   364. 

1  Ford  V.  Wilson,  85  Ga.  109,  11 
S.  E.  559;  St.  Paul  Labor  Exch. 
Co.  V.  Eden,  48  Minn.  5,  50  N.  W. 
921;  Howe  v.  Kindred,  42  Minn. 
433,  44  N.  W.  311;  Concord  Apart- 
ment House  Co.  V.  O'Brien,  128 
111.  App.  437,  affirmed,  228  111. 
476,  81  N.  E.  1076. 

2  Smith  &  Vaile  Co.  v.  Butts,  72 
Miss.  269,  16  So.  242. 


453 


WAIVER CASH    DEPOSIT MORTGAGE. 


[§179 


one  court. ^  Other  courts  hold  that  this  will  amount  to  a 
waiver."*  But  it  seems  that  before  it  will  be  considered  as 
an  absolute  waiver  it  should  be  shown  that  such  was  the 
intention  of  the  parties.  The  promise  of  a  subsequent  pur- 
cliaser,^  or  an  agent,  to  pay  the  claim  is  not  a  collateral 
security.*^  Under  statutory  provisions,  some  courts  have 
held  that  if  the  payment  is  guaranteed  by  a  cash  deposit, 
the  lien  will  be  waived.'^  But  in  the  absence  of  statutory 
provisions  and  of  any  clearly  expressed  intention  to  that 
efifect  the  better  doctrine  is  that  it  is  not  a  waiver.^  So  we 
have  the  same  diversity  of  opinion  upon  the  question  whether 
a  mortgage  on  the  same  property  to  secure  the  payment  of 
a  lien  will  amount  to  a  waiver  of  the  lien.  A  considerable 
number  of  courts  hold  that  it  has  this  effect.^     But  the  pre- 


3  Hinchman  v.  Lybrand,  14 
Serg.  &  R.   (Pa.)   32. 

4  Kankakee  Coal  Co.  v.  Crane 
Bros.  Mfg.  Co.,  138  111.  207,  27  N. 
E.  935;  Croskey  v.  Corey,  48  111. 
442;  Button  v.  New  England  Mut. 
Fire  Ins.  Co.,  29  N.  H.  153.  Ques- 
tioned. Milliken  v.  Armstrong,  17 
Ind.  456. 

5  Mervin  v.  Sherman,  9  Iowa 
331. 

6  Husband  or  wife.  Bissell  v. 
Lewis,  56  Iowa  231,  9  N.  W.  177. 

7  Must  be  express  agreement. 
Allis  V.  Meadow  Spring  Dist. 
Co.,  67  Wis.  16,  29  N.  W.  543,  30 
N.  W.  300.     See   §144. 

8  Shickle,  Harrison  &  Howard 
Iron  Co.  V.  Council  Bluffs  Water- 
works Co.,  33  Fed.  13. 

9  Kendall  v.  Fader,  199  111.  294, 
65  N.  E.  318;  Barrows  v.  Baugh- 
man,  9  Mich.  213;  Trullinger  v. 
Kofoed,  7  Ore.  228,  33  Am.  St. 
708;  Bristol-Goodson  Electric 
Light,  &c.,  Co.  V.  Bristol  Gas,  Elec- 


tric Light,  &c.,  Co.,  99  Tenn.  371, 
42  S.  W.  19.  There  is  an  irrecon- 
cilable conflict  of  authorities. 
Chapman  v.  Brewer,  43  Neb.  890, 
62  N.  W.  320,  47  Am.  St.  779.  Sec- 
ond mortgage.  Weaver  v.  Demuth, 
40  N.  J.  L.  238. 

>VIiat  is  identical  property. — 
The  taking  of  bonds  secured  by 
a  mortgage  on  "all  the  franchises, 
fuel,  rolling  stock,  cars,  engines, 
machinery,  and  appurtenances  ap- 
pertaining or  belonging  to"  a  sin- 
gle division  of  a  railroad  line 
which  embraces  four  different  di- 
visions, as  collateral  security  for 
a  mechanic's  lien  claimed  upon 
"building,  erection,  or  other  im- 
provement, including  any  work  of 
internal  improvement,"  on  the  en- 
tire line  of  road,  including  the 
four  divisions,  is  not  equivalent 
to  taking  security  upon  the  iden- 
tical property  upon  which  the 
mechanic's  lien  is  sought  to  be 
enforced.     Hale  v.  Burlington,  C. 


180] 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN   RIGHT. 


454 


vailing-  opinion  seems  to  be  that  it  does  not  amount  to  a 
vv^aiver,^^  unless  it  affirmatively  appears  that  such  was  the 
intention  of  the  parties.^^  If  the  collateral  security  is  sur- 
rendered before  the  lien  right  is  lost  by  expiration  of  time, 
all  are  agreed  that  the  right  will  not  be  waived. ^^ 

§  180.  Waiver  by  estoppel. — The  doctrine  of  waiver  in  its 
application  generally  rests  upon  the  doctrine  of  estoppel,  and 
has  the  same  application  in  mechanic's  liens  as  in  other  cases.^ 
Generally  if  one  is  not  obliged  to  speak  his  silence  will  not 
work  an  estoppel.^     An  attempted   settlement,^   or  advanced 


R.  &  N.  R.  Co.,  2  McCrary  (U.  S.) 
558,  13  Fed.  203. 

10  Arkansas. — Roberts  v.  Wil- 
coxson,  36  Ark.  355. 

Mississippi. — Kingsland  &  Doug- 
las Mfg.  Co.  V.  Massey,  69  Miss. 
296,  13  So.  269;  Parberry  v.  John- 
son, 51  Miss.  291. 

IVew  York. — Brumme  v.  Herod, 

38  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  558,  56  N.  Y. 
Supp.  670;  Hall  v.  Pettigrove,  10 
Hun    (N.  Y.)    609. 

Jfew  Me.xico. — IMountain  Elec- 
tric Co.  V.  Miles,  9  N.  Mex.  512,  56 
Pac.  284. 

Texas. — Farmers'  &  Mechanics' 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Taylor,  91  Tex.  78,  40 
S.  W.  876,  966.  It  is  not  collateral 
security.     Gilcrest  v.    Gottschalk, 

39  Iowa  311. 

11  Nebraska. — Henry  &  Coats- 
worth  Co.  V.  Fisherdick,  37  Neb. 
207,  55  N.  W.  643. 

Missouri. — Gorman  v.  Sagner, 
22  Mo.  137. 

Soutli  Dakota. — Charles  Betcher 
Co.  V.  Cleveland,  13  S.  Dak.  347, 
83  N.  W.  366. 

Wisconsin. — Phoenix  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
McCormick  Harvesting  Mach.  Co., 
Ill  Wis.  570,  87  N.  W.  458. 


Federal. — Hale  v.  Burlington, 
&c.,  R.  Co.,  2  McCrary  (U.  S.)  558, 
13  Fed.  203. 

12  National  Lumber  Co.  v.  Bow- 
man, 77  Iowa  706,  42  N.  W.  557; 
Getchell  v.  Musgrove,  54  Iowa  744, 
7  N.  W.  154.  Taking  judgment. 
A  claim  for  lien  is  not  waived 
by  the  taking  of  a  judgment  at 
law  upon  the  account  due  and  un- 
paid. Sorg  V.  Crandall,  129  111. 
App.  255,  affirmed;  Lowden  v. 
Sorg,  233  111.  79,  84  N.  E.  181. 

1  Estoppel  and  implied  consent, 
see  §  35.  Estoppel  of  owner,  see 
§  142.  Estoppel  of  lienholder,  see 
§  154.  Estoppel  of  mortgagee,  see 
§  161.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit. 
Mechanic's  Liens,  §  216. 

2  Bruce  Lumber  Co.  v.  Hoos,  67 
Mo.  App.  264.  The  fact  that  a 
purchaser  goes  through  a  house, 
in  the  presence  of  the  contractor, 
which  is  apparently  done,  but  is 
not  in  fact,  the  contractor  not  In- 
forming purchaser  of  that  fact, 
will  not  estop  him  from  asserting 
his  lien.  Billings  Co.  v.  Brand, 
187  Mass.  417,  73  N.  E.  637. 

3  Palmer  v.  McGinness,  127 
Iowa  118,  102  N.  W.  802. 


455  WAIVER  BY  ESTOPPEL.  [§  180 

payment,"*  or  commencement  of  foreclosure  proceedings,^  or 
receipt  of  part  of  the  consideration  in  property,*^  or  in  money, 
are  not  estoppels."  But  the  acceptance  of  other  security,'^*  or 
agreement  not  to  look  to  the  owner,^  or  not  to  have  a  lien,^ 
or  advice  to  make  a  mortgage  and  giving  assistance  in  selling 
bonds  secured  thereby,^''  or  execution  of  receipt  in  full,  where 
parties  act  on  such  receipts,  are  estoppels. ^^  There  is  no 
estoppel  generally  unless,  without  it,  a  wrong  will  result  from 
the  action  of  the  party  against  whom  the  estoppel  is  sought.^2 
The  doctrine  of  estoppel  is  one  of  prevention  of  fraud,  and 
other  things  being  equal,  it  will  at  no  time  be  applied  to 
prevent  the  mechanic  from  taking  a  lien,  unless  the  taking  of 
it  will  work  a  fraud  upon  some  third  person. ^^  Where  one 
releases  his  mortgage  lien  in  order  to  enable  the  owner  to 
raise  money  by  a  mortgage  he  is  estopped  from  asserting  his 
mortgage.  But  the  fact  that  the  lienor  expects  money  raised 
on  a  mortgage  to  be  applied  on  his  lien  v/ill  not  work  as  an 
estoppel  of  the  mortgage  right. ^^ 


4  Munroe  v.   Merrell,   113   Mich.  Gas,  &c.,  Co.,  99  Tenn.  371,  42  S. 
491,   71  N.  W.  850.     See  advance  W.  19. 

payment,  §51.  n  Cote  Brilliant  Pressed  Brick 

5  Dowd  V.  Dowd,  126  Mich.  649,  Co.  v.  Sadring,  68  Mo.  App.  15. 
86  N.  W.  128,  8  Det.  Leg.  N.  196.  12  Badger  Lumber  Co.  v.  Muehle- 

6  Bayard  v.  McGraw,  1  111.  App.  bach,  109  Mo.  App.  646,  83  S.  W. 
134.  546. 

7  Cook  V.  Hunt,  24  111.  536.  i3  District    of    Columbia.— Phil- 
7a  Keller  v.  Coman,  162  111.  117,  lips  v.  Gilbert,  2  MacArthur,    (D. 

44  N.  E.  434;   Smith  v.  Iowa  City  C.)  415. 

Loan  &  Bldg.  Assn.,  60  Iowa  164,  Illinois. — Commercial  Loan,  &c., 

14  N.  W.  221;   Willison  v.  Doug-  Assn.  v.  Trevette,  160  111.  390,  43 

lass,  66  Md.   99,   6  Atl.   530.     See  N.  E.  769;   Hughes  v.  McCasland, 

preceding  sections.  122  111.  App.  365. 

s  Green    Bay    Lumber     Co.     v.  Indiana. — Acker  v.  Massman,  12 

Thomas,   106  Iowa  154,   76  N.  W.  Ind.  App.  696,  41  N.  E.  77. 

651.  Utah. — Spargo     v.     Nelson,     10 

9  Aikens  v.  Frank,  21  Mont.  192,  Utah   274,   37   Pac.   495. 

53  Pac.  538.  i-i  McGraw   v.      Bayard,   96   111. 

10  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Bristol  146;    Henry,    &c.,   Co.   v.   Fisher- 

dick,  37  Neb.  207,  55  N.  W.  643. 


181 


ANNULMENT   OR   AVOIDANCE   OF  LIEN    RIGHT. 


456 


§  181.  Waiver  as  affecting  subcontractors. — Before  the 
statements  or  conduct  of  a  subcontractor  will  estop  him,  it 
must  be  shown  that  such  statement  or  conduct  will  work  an 
injury  to  the  person  claiming  the  estoppel.  The  fact  that 
the  statement  is  false, ^  or  fraudulent,  is  not  sufficient.^  If 
the  subcontractor  gives  the  owner  a  receipt  and  accepts  a 
worthless  check,  and  the  owner  pays  the  contractor  on  the 
faith  of  such  receipt,  the  subcontractor  will  be  estopped  from 
asserting  his  lien  as  against  the  owner.-"^  But  the  fact  that  the 
subcontractor  was  present  at  a  settlement  made  between  the 
owner  and  contractor,'*  and  made  no  objection  to  the  owner's 
paying  the  contractor  in  full,  knowing  that  the  latter  was 
going  to  leave  the  state,  will  not  estop  the  subcontractor  from 
asserting  his  right. ^  If  the  subcontractor  should  direct,^  or 
consent  that  the  owner  pay  the  contractor,  as  a  matter  of 
course  he  will  be  bound."  He  will  not  be  bound  by  the 
representations  of  an  agent,  unless  the  agent  has  full  authority.^ 
So  if  the  subcontractor  accepts  money  arising  from  a  mort- 
gage or  assists  in  selling  bonds,  he  will  be  bound  and  can 
not  assert  his  lien   as  against  the   mortgage. '^     As  a  matter 


1  Simonsen  v.  Stachlewicz,  82 
Wis.  338,  52  N.  W.  310. 

2  Washburn  v.  Kahler,  97  Cal. 
58,  31  Pac.  741;  Abham  v.  Boyd, 
7  Daly  (N.  Y.)  30.  In  an  action 
by  D.,  a  mechanic,  to  enforce  a 
lien  for  labor  on  A.'s  building, 
an  answer  that,  before  the  record- 
ing of  the  notice  of  the  lien,  A. 
had  paid  M.,  the  contractor,  in 
full,  that  D.  could  then  have  col- 
lected his  claim  of  M.,  and  that 
afterwards  D.  had  assisted  M.  to 
dispose  of  his  property  subject  to 
execution,  with  intent  to  defraud 
A.,  well  knowing  of  such  paj'- 
ment,  was  insufficient;  D.'s  right 
to  a  lien  being  statutory.  Andis 
V.  Davis,  63  Ind.  17. 


3  Cook  V.  Herring,  30  Pittsb. 
Leg.  J.   (N.  S.)    (Pa.)   70. 

4  Havighorst  v.  Lindberg,  67 
111.  463. 

5  Merritt  v.  Pearson,  58  Ind. 
385. 

6  Rand  v.  Grubbs,  26  Mo.  App. 
591. 

"  Chilton  V.  Lindsay,  38  Mo. 
App.  57.  Certain  installments 
only  included.  Biggs  v.  Clapp,  74 
111.  335. 

8  Gull  River  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Keefe,  6  Dak.  160,  41  N.  W.  743; 
Morton  Lumber  Co.  v.  Driving 
Park  Assn.,  64  Mo.  App.  377. 

^  A  mechanic  furnishing  mater- 
ial for  the  construction  of  a  mill, 
under  a  contract  with  the  owner, 


457 


WAIVER  BY  TAKING   BOND  OR  DEPOSITS. 


182 


of  course,  only  such  persons  that  may  have  an  interest  and  be 
affected,  can  claim  or  assert  the  benefit  of  the  waiver. ^^ 

§  182.  Waiver  by  taking  bond  or  deposits. — If  properly 
executed  and  such  is  the  intention  of  the  parties,  there  is  no 
mechanic's  lien  but  that  can  be  waived  or  discharged  by  the 
giving  of  a  proper  bond  or  making  a  sufficient  deposit.^  It 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  bond  spoken  of  here  to 
prevent  a  lien  is  not  an  indemnity  bond  in  the  general  use 
of  that  term,  but  is  a  bond  to  take  the  place  of  the  lien  itself 
and  pay  the  debt.  In  some  states  the  statutes  provide  a 
method  of  preventing  a  lien  by  the  giving  of  a  bond  and 
subcontractors  are  relegated  to  that  bond  to  recover  what- 
ever may  be  due  them,  and  unless  a  bond  is  given  under  such 
a  statutory  provision,  it  will  be  a  protection  or  operate  as  a 
waiver  only  upon  the  rights  of  the  persons  who  are  parties  to 
the  bond.2  Where  a  bond  is  given  under  a  statute  to  dis- 
charge the  property   from  a  mechanic's  lien,  the  bond  must 


may,  by  his  agreement  as  to  the 
manner  of  payment,  and  his  acts 
with  respect  to  the  claims  of  other 
creditors,  be  precluded  from  as- 
serting a  mechanic's  lien,  as 
against  such  creditors,  although 
he  has  made  no  express  promise 
that  he  will  not  assert  such  lien. 
West  V.  Klotz,  37  Ohio  St.  420. 

10  Leftwich  Lumber  Co.  v.  Flor- 
ence Mut.  Building,  &c.,  Assn.  104 
Ala.  584,  18  So.  48;  Lyon  &  Sons 
Lumber,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Equitable 
Loan  &  Inv.  Assn.,  174  111.  31,  50 
N.  E.  1006. 

1  Rockwell  V.  Kelly,  190  Mass. 
439,  77  N.  E.  490.  Must  be  filed 
properly  if  the  law  so  requires. 
Kille  V.  Bentley,  6  Kan.  App.  804, 
51  Pac.  232.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  218. 


2  In  Ohio,  where  the  statute 
makes  no  provision  for  a  bond,  it 
was  held  (American  Surety  Com- 
pany V.  Raeder,  15  Ohio  C.  C.  47, 
affirmed  by  Supreme  Court,  43 
Bulletin  39)  where  a  bond  was 
given  by  a  contractor,  the  stipu- 
lation of  such  bond  being  as  fol- 
lows: "The  condition  of  this  ob- 
ligation is  such,  that,  whereas  the 
said  Peter  J.  Black,  did,  on  the 
27th  day  of  May,  A.  D.  1895,  enter 
into  the  foregoing  agreement 
with  said  Board  of  Education, 
which  said  agreement  is  made  a 
part  of  this  bond,  the  same  as 
though  fully  set  forth  herein,  now, 
if  the  said  Peter  J.  Black,  desig- 
nated as  said  party  of  the  second 
part,  in  the  said  foregoing  agree- 
ment,   shall    well    and    truly    per- 


182] 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN   RIGHT. 


458 


be  made  and  executed  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
such  statute.''^  Any  person  who  has  a  sufficient  interest  in  the 
property  to  make  a  contract  binding  it  for  a  hen,  will  have  suffi- 
cient interest  to  require  a  bond  to  protect  it  from  liens."*  It 
is  always  good  practice  to  follow  the  statute  in  the  making 
of  a  statutory  bond,  yet  if  the  bond  is  sufficient  according  to 
the  rules  of  common  law,  it  will  be  sufficient  for  the  purpose 
of  discharging  the  lien.^  However,  if  by  statute  the  giving 
of  such  bond  transfers  the  claimant's  riofht  to  a  lien  to  the 


form  all  and  singular,  the  stipu- 
lations of  said  agreement  by  him 
to  be  performed  and  shall  pay  all 
just  and  legal  claims  for  labor 
performed  upon,  and  for  materi- 
als furnished  for  the  work  speci- 
fied in  said  agreement,  the  same 
shall  remain  in  full  force  and 
virtue  in  law;  otherwise,  then, 
this  obligation  shall  be  void.  We 
hereby  agreeing  and  consenting 
that  this  undertaking  shall  be  for 
the  use  of  any  laborer  or  material- 
man having  a  just  claim  as  afore- 
said as  well  as  for  said  Board  of 
Education."  That  under  such 
bond  any  of  the  persons  therein 
mentioned  to  be  protected  to-wit, 
labor  or  material  men,  might  sue 
on  such  bond.  One  of  the  princi- 
pal cases  relied  upon  and  where 
there  is  no  statute  bearing  upon 
the  subject  is  that  of  City  of  St. 
Louis  V.  Von  Phul,  133  Mo.  561,  34 
S.  W.  843,  54  Am.  St.  695.  Cases 
cited  as  holding  the  same  view 
are  Sample  v.  Hale,  34  Neb.  220, 
51  N.  W.  837;  Lyman  v.  Lincoln, 
38  Neb.  794,  57  N.  W.  531;  Baker 
V.  Bryan,  64  Iowa  561,  21  N.  W. 
83;  Knapp  v.  Swaney,  56  Mich. 
345;    23   N.   W.   162,   56  Am.   Rep. 


397;  In  re  478  Cherry  St.,  27  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)   682,  58  N.  Y.  Supp.  665. 

3  Mathiasen  v.  Shannon,  25 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  274,  54  N.  Y.  Supp. 
305.  In  Illinois  it  is  held  that 
it  could  be  made  at  any  time, 
even  after  suit  to  enforce  a  lien 
was  commenced.  Martin  v.  Swift, 
120  111.  488,  12  N.  E.  201.  But  in 
Pennsylvania  it  was  held  too  late, 
after  a  scire  facias  was  issued. 
Hood  V.  Building  Assn.,  9  Phila. 
(Pa.)  105,  30  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  44; 
IMaulsbury  v.  Simpson,  11  Phila. 
(Pa.)  196,  33  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  108. 
This  matter  is  entirely  controlled 
by  statute.  Sulzer  v.  Ross,  12 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  206. 

■i  Massachusetts.  —  Breed  v. 
Gardner,  187  Mass.  300,  72  N.  E. 
983;  Landers  v.  Adams,  165  Mass. 
415,  43  N.  E.  119;  Glendon  Co.  v. 
Townsend,   120  Mass.    346. 

New  York. — Miller  &  Schmitt, 
35  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  231,  71  N.  Y. 
Supp.  771;  New  York  Lumber  &c., 
Co.  V.  Seventy-third  St.  Bldg.  Co., 
15  Daly  (N.  Y.)  133,  3  N.  Y. 
Supp.  937. 

3  Carnegie  v.  Hulbert,  70  Fed. 
209,  16  C.  C.  A.  498,  36  U.  S.  App. 
8L 


459  WAIVER  BY  TAKING  BOND  OR  DEPOSITS.  [§  182 

bond,  and  the  statute  should  be  declared  unconstitutional, 
the  bond  can  not  be  upheld  even  if  it  were  good  as  a  common 
law  obligation.^  These  bonds  are  liberally  construed  so  as  to 
accomplish  the  purpose  intended  and  will  not  be  invalid  by 
reason  of  immaterial  defects;  thus,  where  the  statute  di- 
rected the  bond  to  be  made  to  the  contractor  and  it  was 
made  directly  to  the  material  man  for  whose  benefit  it  was 
intended"  or  where  it  does  not  directly  say  for  whose  benefit 
it  is,  but  this  fact  can  be  gathered  from  other  recitals,^  or 
where  treated  as  valid  by  all  the  parties,^  or  where  the  seal 
has  been  omitted,  it  will  not  be  held  invalid.^''  If  the  law 
should  be  repealed  after  the  bond  is  made,  it  will  be  valid 
as  to  all  existing  rights. ^^  In  order  for  a  person  to  be  a 
beneficiary  under  a  bond,  he  must  bring  himself  within  its  terms 
and  the  statute  relating  thereto. ^^  Ji  cannot  include  property 
not  coming  within  its  description. ^^  The  rule  that  a  person 
who  has  made  a  mis-representation  can  reap  no  benefit  there- 
from, applies  in  case  of  these  bonds  as  well  as  elsewhere.^'* 
If  the  owner  fails  to  take  a  bond  in  sufficient  amount,  he 
may  be  liable  for  the  balance. ^^ 

6  San  Francisco  Lumber  Co.  v.  lo  Whitney  v.  Coleman,  9   Daly 

Bibb,   139   Cal.    192,   72   Pac.   964;  (N.  Y.)    238. 

Marshall    v.    Krauskop,    18    Lane.  n  Hawkins       v.     Mapes-Reeves 

(Pa.)  388.    Must  be  indexed  under  Const.  Co.,   82  App.   Div.    (N.   Y.) 

Pennsylvania    act     of     1895-1901.  72,  81  N.  Y.  Supp.  794. 

King  V.  Reese,  15  York,  86;  8  Del.  12  Gibbs   v.   Tally,   63   Pac.    168, 

Co.   Ct.    (Pa.)    304.  reversed  on  another  point  in  133 

"!■  Carnegie   v.    Hulbert,    70   Fed.  Cal.    373,    65    Pac.    970;    Hood    v. 

209,  16  C.  C.  A.  498,  36  U.  S.  App.  Building   Assn.,    9      Phila.      (Pa.) 

81.  105,  30  Leg.  Int.   (Pa.)    44. 

8  San  Francisco  Lumber  Co.  v..  13  Kille  v.  Bentley,  6  Kan.  App. 
Bibb,    139    Cal.    192,    72    Pac.    964.  804,  51  Pac.  232. 

If   no    penalty   inserted,    bond    is  i4  Bugger   v.     Cresswell,    (Pa.) 

good.    United  States  Wind-Engine  12  Atl.  829. 

&   Pump   Co.   V.    Drexel,    53    Neb.  i5  Willey   v.    St.    Charles    Hotel 

771,   74   N.   W.   317.  Co.,  52  La.  Ann.  1581,  28  So.  182. 

9  Sheffield    v.    Murray,    80    Hun 
(N.  Y.)   555,  30  N.  Y.  Supp.  799. 


183] 


ANNULMENT   OR   AVOIDANCE   OF  LIEN    RIGHT. 


460 


§  183.  Waiver  by  deposit — Effect  and  operation  of. — There 
may  be  a  waiver  by  a  deposit  of  a  sum  of  money  sufficient 
to  satisfy  all  liens  as  well  as  the  giving  of  a  bond.^  Statutes 
permitting  this  to  be  done  in  order  to  defeat  the  mechanic's 
lien  on  the  property,  must  be  strictly  followed,^  and  the 
amount  must  cover  the  same  claim  on  which  a  judgment 
may  be  recovered.^  Of  course  the  contractor  or  material 
man  may  waive  his  right  to  such  deposits  and  the  owner  may 
likewise,  and  by  agreement  the  parties  may  release  their  lien 
rights.**  If  a  deposit  is  made  in  court  it  will  be  valid  until 
the  matter  is  finally  terminated.^  When  the  deposit  has 
been  made  or  the  bond  given  in  accordance  with  statutory 
provisions  permitting  the  same  to  be  given  and  liens  dis- 
charged, then  it  will  so  act  and  the  property  is  free,  the  parties 
being  required  to  pursue  the  deposits  or  the  bond  for  their 
claim.*^  And  it  will  be  no  defense  to  the  bond  that  a  party 
had  not  perfected  his  lien  claim."^  But  the  bond  must  be  a 
valid  one,^  and  the  money  must  not  be  withheld  by  fault  of 
the  person  in  whose  favor  the  bond  is  given.^     A  lien  holder 


1  See    §  179. 

2  Burton  v.  Rockwell,  63  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  163,  17  N.  Y.  Supp.  665; 
Hall  V.  Dennerlein,  14  N.  Y.  Supp. 
796,  39  N.  Y.  St.  67.  Money  will 
be  returned  when  lien  is  dis- 
charged. In  re  Thirty-Fifth  St. 
&c.,  Realty  Co.,  121  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)   625,  106  N.  Y.  Supp.  390. 

3  Dowdney  v.  McCollom,  5  Daly 
(N.   Y.)    240. 

4  Whittier  v.  Blakely,  13  Ore. 
546,  11  Pac.  305. 

3  Hafker  v.  Henry,  5  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  258,  39  N.  Y.  Supp.  134; 
Cunningham  v.  Hatch,  18  N.  Y. 
Supp.   458,  45   N.  Y.   St.   685. 

•5  Trustees  of  Wylly  Academy  v. 
Sanford,  17  Fla.  162;   Dunning  v. 


Clark,  2  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  535; 
Sulzer  V.  Ross,  12  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
206.  Martin  v.  Swift,  120  111.  488, 
12  N.  E.  201;  Hoffman  v.  Haines, 
8  Phila.  (Pa.)  248.  On  paying 
into  court  the  amount  owing  by 
him  to  the  principal  contractor, 
the  owner  may  have  the  princi- 
pal contractor  substituted  as  de- 
fendant and  be  discharged  as  pro- 
vided for  by  Rev.  St.  Wis.  §  2610. 
Wagner  v.  McMillen,  72  Wis.  327, 
39  N.  W.  777. 

7  Risse  V.  Hopkins  Planing  Mill 
Co.,  55  Kan.  518,  40  Pac.  904. 

8  Keyes  v.    Brackett,   187   Mass. 
306,  72  N.  E.  986. 

9  Baumhoff    v.    St.    Louis,    &c., 
R.  Co.,  171  Mo.  120,  71  S.  W.  156. 


461  WAIVER  BY  DEPOSIT.  [§  183 

may  raise  the  question  as  to  the  bond's  validity. ^^  But  be- 
fore the  lienor  is  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the  bond,  he  must 
show  that  he  has  such  a  claim  against  the  property  as  the 
law  declares  is  a  proper  one  to  bring  him  in  as  a  beneficiary 
of  the  bond.i^ 

§  184.     Waiver — Liability  on  bond  made  to  release  lien. — 

Most  all  of  these  bonds  are  of  a  statutory  nature,  no  two  of 
the  statutes  being  exactly  alike,  and  it  would  be  very  difficult 
to  give  any  general  rule  to  be  applied  to  all.  Taking  into 
consideration  the  statutes  under  which  they  are  given  it  may 
be  said  that  the  construction  ordinarily  given  to  liability  on 
bonds  will  apply. ^  In  the  first  place  no  one  can  claim  pro- 
tection of  a  bond  who  does  not  come  within  the  express  or 
implied  obligation  of  such  bond.  If  it  is  conditioned  to  pro- 
tect the  owner,  it  will  not  aid  any  one  else,-  unless  the  statute 
expressly  makes  it  so.^  If  there  is  no  liability  between  the 
owner  and  the  contractor,  there  is  nothing  to  support  the 
bond,  and  it  is  invalid.'^  There  may  be  circumstances  which 
will  allow  some  to  take  advantage  of  it  to  the  exclusion  of 
others.^  As  a  general  thing  the  contractor  is  principal  in  these 
bonds,  and  if  he  is  financially  responsible  suit  will  be  brought 
directly  by  a  claimant  against  him.     Therefore,  as  a  general 

10  Taunton  Sav.  Bank  v.  Bur-  21,  v.  Vordenbaumen,  111  La.  213, 
rell,  179  Mass.  421,  60  N.  E.  930;       35  So.  524. 

Kerrigan  v.  Fielding,  47  App.  Div.  3  Green  Bay  Lumber  Co.  v.  In- 

(N.  Y.)   246,  62  N.  Y.  Supp.  115.  pendent  School     Dist.,  121     Iowa 

11  In  re  Dean,  83  Hun  (N.  Y.)  663,  97  N.  W.  72;  Salmen  Brick, 
413,  31  N.  Y.  Supp.  959;  Raven  &c.,  Co.  v.  Le  Sassier,  106  La. 
V.   Smith,  76  Hun    (N.  Y.)    60,  27  389,    30    So.    7. 

N.  Y.  Supp.  611;  People  V.  Butler,  -i  Burleigh     Bldg.   Co.     v.    Mer- 

61  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  274;  Dunning  chant  Brick  &  Bldg.  Co.,  13  Colo. 

V.   Clark,  2  E.  D.   Smith,    (N.  Y.)  App.    455,    59    Pac.    83;    Casey    v. 

535.  Connors  Bros.  Const.  Co.,  53  Misc. 

1  See  §  182.  Action  on  Indem-  (N.  Y.)  101,  103  N.  Y.  Supp.  1103. 
nity  Bond.  5  United  States  Wind  Engine  & 

2  Lichtentag  v.  Feitel,  113  La.  Pump  Co.  v.  Drexel,  53  Neb.  771, 
931,  37  So.  880;  Neith  Lodge,  No.  74  N.  W.  317. 


184] 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN   RIGHT. 


462 


rule,  it  is  only  when  he  is  not  responsible  that  suit  is  brought 
on  the  bond  and  the  surety  sought  to  be  held  responsible, 
and  like  other  bonds  it  is  strictly  construed  in  favor  of  such 
surety.  But  if  the  surety  sign  the  bond  and  the  property 
is  thereby  relieved  from  the  lien  claim  and  the  contractors 
have  no  other  security  except  the  bond,  the  sureties  will  be 
bound  by  strict  obligation  of  such  bond.^  The  fact  that  a 
material  man  may  have  so  acted  at  the  time  his  payments 
are  extended  or  changed,"^  or  attempted  to  make  payments  by 
a  void  obligation,^  or  that  judgment  in  foreclosure  did  not 
provide  for  the  enforcement  of  the  lien  against  the  property, 
will  not  release  the  surety.^  Some  courts  have  held  that  if  on 
the  faith  of  the  bonds,  the  liens  are  discharged,  the  surety 
can  not  question  the  validity  of  the  bond.^*^  If  the  bond  is 
treated  as  valid  by  all  parties,^  ^  or  the  mechanic  is  induced 
not  to  file  a  lien, ^2  qj-  t^g  surety  knows  that  the  material  has 
been  furnished,  he  is  not  permitted  to  deny  these  facts. ^^ 
The  surety  however  is  not  liable  for  departures  from  the 
original  contract  as  covered  by  the  bond,i^  or  where  the  lien 
is  discharged  for  some  other  cause,^^  or  where  a  new  contract 


6  Neith  Lodge,  No.  21,  v.  Vor- 
denbaumen.  111  La.  213,  35  So. 
524. 

7  Chaffee  v.  United  States  Fidel- 
ity, &c.,  Co.,  128  Fed.  918,  63  C. 
C.  A.  644. 

s  Chester  City  Presbyterian 
Church  V.  Conlin,  7  Del.  Co.  Ct. 
437,  11  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  413. 

9  Ringle  v.  O'Matthiessen,  39  N. 
Y.  Supp.  92,  17  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
374,  45  N.  Y.  Supp.  226.  A  sure- 
ty is  not  released  where  not  prej- 
udiced. Neithe  Lodge,  No.  21,  v. 
Vordenbaumen,  111  La.  213,  35  So. 
524. 

10  Mathiasen  v.  Shannon,  25 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  274,  54  N.  Y.  Supp. 
305. 


11  Miller  v.  Youmans,  13  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)    59,  34  N.  Y.  Supp.  140. 

12  Carnegie  v.  Hulbert,  70  Fed. 
209,  16  C.  C.  A.  498,  36  U.  S.  App. 
81. 

13  Brink  v.  Bartlett,  105  La.  336, 
29   So.   958. 

14  Tinsley  v.  Kemery,  111  Mo. 
App.  87,  84  S.  W.  993. 

15  Where  a  suit  to  enforce  a 
lien  fails  to  establish  the  mechan- 
ics' liens  sought  to  be  enforced, 
but  a  constructive  trust  upon  a 
fund  in  the  hands  of  one  of  the 
defendants  is  declared  in  favor  of 
the  lienors,  the  obligation  of  the 
undertaking  filed  by  a  subsequent 
purchaser  of  the  property  ceases, 
and  the  principal  and  his  sureties 


463  WAIVER — ACTION    ON    BOND. 

is  made/''  or  the  old  contract  materially  changed. ^^ 


[§185 


§  185.  Waiver — Action  on  such  bond. — Under  the  New 
York  statute  an  action  on  a  bond  given  to  an  owner  con- 
ditioned for  the  payment  of  any  judgment  that  may  be  ren- 
dered against  the  property  is  maintainable  against  all  parties 
interested,  including  the  sureties  without  foreclosing  the  lien.^ 
This  same  court  holds  that  the  action  is  equitable,^  and  the 
practice  is  simple.^  It  is  proper  to  make  parties  to  such  an 
action  all  persons  who  should  be  parties  in  the  suit  to  fore- 
close the  lien  without  there  having  been  a  bond  given.'*     The 


are  discharged.  Anglo-American 
Savings,  &c.,  Assn.  v.  Campbell, 
13  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   581. 

10  Manny  v.  National  Surety  Co., 
103   Mo.  App.   716,  78   S.  W.   69. 

^"^  Fullerton  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Gates,  89  Mo.  App.  201.  Where 
a  bond  has  been  given  by  the 
contractor  for  the  faithful  per- 
formance of  the  contract,  and 
where,  without  the  knowledge  of 
the  sureties,  the  owner  ordered, 
by  parol,  certain  changes  that 
materially  increased  the  cost  of 
such  building,  and  such  changes 
were  executed  by  the  contractor, 
held,  that  the  parties  thereby 
changed  their  contract,  and  to 
hold  the  sureties  liable  under  this 
substituted  arrangement  would 
be  to  hold  them  beyond  the  ex- 
press terms  of  their  contract. 
Chester  City  Presbyterian  Church 
V.  Conlin,  7  Del.  Co.  Ct.  437,  11 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  413. 

1  Morton  v.  Tucker,  145  N.  Y. 
244,  40  N.  E.  3.  Contra.  Sheffield 
V.  Robinson,  73  Hun    (N.  Y.)   173, 


25  N.  Y.  Supp.  1098;  Brandt  v. 
Radley,  23  N.  Y.  Supp.  277.  See 
for  premature  action.  Bearing  v. 
Boss,  55  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  58,  106  N. 
Y.  Supp.  219.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.    tit.   Mechanics'   Liens,    §  228. 

2  Ringle  v.  O'Matthiessen,  39  N. 
Y.   Supp.   92. 

3  Morton  v.  Tucker,  145  N.  Y. 
244,   40  N.   E.  3. 

4  Cockrill  V.  Davie,  14  Mont. 
131,  35  Pac.  958;  Eureka  Sand- 
stone Co.  V.  Long,  11  Wash.  161, 
39  Pac.  446;  Phillips  v.  Gilbert, 
101  U.  S.  721,  25  L.  ed.  833;  Miller 
V.  McKeon,  15  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
133,  44  N.  Y.  Supp.  371;  State  v. 
Bowman,  10  Ohio  445;  Sheffield 
V.  Robinson,  73  Hun  (N.  Y.)  173, 
25  N.  Y.  Supp.  1098.  Owner  of 
property  necessary  party.  Von  Den 
Driesch  v.  Rohrig,  45  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  526,  61  N.  Y.  Supp.  341. 
Purchaser  of  lot  necessary.  Gar- 
land V.  Van  Rensaelaer,  71  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  2,  24  N.  Y.  Supp.  781.  All 
who  have  filed  liens,  etc.  Scherer 
V.  Music  Hall  Co.,  18  N.  Y.  Supp. 


§  1!?5] 


ANNULMENT   OR   AVOIDANCE   OF   LIEN    RIGHT. 


464 


sureties  may  plead  any  defense  that  is  open  to  the  contractor.^ 
Whoever  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  bond,  as  a  matter  of 


459.  The  allegations  of  the  com- 
plaint as  to  the  name  of  the 
obligee  are  as  follows:  "That 
thereafter,  and  on  or  about  the 
11th  day  of  July,  1894,  the  de- 
fendant Poerschke  obtained  an  or- 
der of  the  court  of  common  pleas 
for  the  city  and  county  of  New 
York  fixing  the  amount  of  the 
bond  to  be  given  to  discharge 
this  lien  at  four  hundred  ($400) 
dollars;  that  thereafter  the  said 
defendant  Poerschke  did  give  his 
bond,  with  the  defendants  Henry 
A.  Ficke  and  Herman  Miller  as 
sureties,  in  the  amount  fixed  by 
the  court,  dated  the  14th  day  of 
August,  1894,  and  conditioned  for 
the  payment  of  any  judgment 
which  may  be  rendered  against 
said  property  in  any  proceeding 
to  enforce  this  lien,  and  an  order 
was  entered  approving  said  bond 
and  discharging  the  lien,  and 
said  lien  was  thereupon  dis- 
charged by  the  clerk  of  the  city 
and  county  of  New  York."  The 
allegations  were  held  sufficient, 
since  it  will  be  assumed  that  the 
l)ond  was  properly  made  to  the 
county  clerk.  Reilly  v.  Poerschke, 
19  INIisc.  (N.  Y.)  612,  44  N.  Y. 
Supp.  422;  Pierce,  &c.,  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Wilson,  118  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
662,  103  N.  Y.   Supp.   678. 

5  Crowley  v.  United  States  Fi- 
delity &  Guaranty  Co.,  29  Wash. 
268,  69  Pac.  784;  Aeschlimann  v. 
Presbyterian  Hospital,  165  N.  Y. 
296,  59  N.  E.  148,  80  Am.  St.  723; 
Sullivan  v.  Goodwin,  164  N.  Y. 
583,   58   N.   E.   1092;      Heagney   v. 


Hopkins,  23  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  608,  52 
N.  Y.  Supp.  207;  Meyers  v.  Wood, 
95  Tex.  67,  65  S.  W.  174.  No  de- 
fense that  account  was  not  sworn 
to.  Carpenter  v.  Furrey,  128  Cal. 
665,  61  Pac.  369.  Terms  of  bond 
controls  over  pleader's  statement. 
Goldstein  v.  Michelson,  45  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  601,  91  N.  Y.  Supp.  33. 
No  defense  that  the  maker  is  lia- 
ble to  city  only.  Smith  v.  New 
York,  32  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  380,  66  N. 
Y.  Supp.  686.  No  defense  where 
bond  given  city,  that  the  lien  was 
not  fully  perfected.  Smith  v.  New 
York,  32  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  380,  66  N. 
Y.  Supp.  686.  See  Ringle  v.  Wallis 
Iron  Works,  16  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  167, 
38  N.  Y.  Supp.  875,  25  N.  Y.  Civ. 
Proc.  261,  as  to  sufficiency  of 
courts  fixing       amount  of 

bond.  Giving  of  a  bond  to 
discharge  property  from  a 
mechanic's  lien  is  not  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  validity  of 
the  lien.  Recital  in  bond  does 
not  estop  surety.  Parsons  v. 
Moses,  40  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  58, 
57  N.  Y.  Supp.  727.  I  Hill's  Code, 
2415,  pro-vides,  inter  alia,  that  con- 
tractors engaged  on  public  works 
for  a  municipal  corporation  shall 
give  a  bond  to  secure  payment 
for  any  material  furnished  in  such 
works.  •  Objection  was  raised  to 
introduction  of  evidence  under  a 
complaint  on  a  bond  given  under 
said  section,  because  the  bond's 
date  was  antecedent  to  that  of  the 
contract;  and  that  it  was  there- 
fore given  to  secure  a  different 
contract  from  that  sued  on.     The 


465 


WAIVER ACTION   ON   BOND. 


185 


course  may  sue  on  it,*"'  and  the  action  accrues  whenever  the 
obligation  has  been  violated^  Leave  of  court  is  not  required,^ 
unless  the  bond  has  been  given  to  a  public  ofificer  for  the 
benefit  of  the  mechanic.^  Under  the  practice  which  makes  it 
proper  to  procure  permission  to  bring  suit,  it  may  be  brought 
in  the  name  of  the  real  party  in  interest. i"  As  a  matter  of 
course  no  recovery  can  be  had  on  the  bond  if  no  right  to  a 
lien  exists  as  the  bond  merely  takes  the  place  of  the  lien.^^ 
And  where  litigation  is  brought  on  the  lien  and  the  surety 
is  a  party  to  such  litigation,  he  cannot  afterwards  raise  ques- 
tions in  a  suit  on  the  bond  which  should  have  been  raised 
in  the  suit  on  the  lien.^^  It  has  been  held  where  the  bond  was 
joint  and  several,  that  suit  might  be  brought  against  the  surety 
before  the  remedies  against  the  contractor  were  exhausted.^^ 
The  beneficiary  under  the  bond  may  collect  all  that  is  rea- 


objection  was  properly  overruled 
as  the  date  did  not  affect  the  va- 
lidity of  the  bond.  Spokane,  &c.. 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Loy,  21  Wash.  501, 
58   Pac.  672,  60  Pac.  1119. 

6  Green  Bay  Lumber  Co.  v.  In- 
dependent School  Dist.,  121  Iowa 
663,  97  N.  W.  72;  Ringle  v.  Wal- 
lis  Iron  Works,  16  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
167,  38  N.  Y.  Supp.  875,  25  N.  Y. 
Civ.  Proc.  261;  Pierce,  &c.,  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Wilson,  118  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)  662,  103  N.  Y.  Supp.  678.  No 
demand  or  notice  required  before 
action  brought.  Carpenter  v. 
Purrey,  128  Cal.  665,  61  Pac.  369. 

7  Carpenter  v.  Furrey,  128  Cal. 
665,  61  Pac.  369;  Green  Bay  Lum- 
ber Co.  v.  Independent  School 
Dist.,  121  Iowa  663,  97  N.  W.  72. 
Nominal  damages  only  can  be  re- 
covered for  breach  of  a  contract- 
or's bond  to  keep  a  building  free 
from  liens,  unless  the  owner  has 


paid   and   discharged  liens   there- 
on.    Henry  v.  Hand,  36  Ore.  492, 

59  Pac.  330. 

8  Reilly  v.  Poerschke,  14  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)    466,  36  N.  Y.  Supp.  1111. 

9  Goldstein  v.  Michelson,  45 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  601,  91  N.  Y.  Supp. 
33.  See  Reilly  v.  Poerschke,  19 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  612,  44  N.  Y.  Supp. 
422,  where  it  is  held  that  leave 
is   not  required. 

10  In  re  John  P.  Kane  Co.,  66 
N.   Y.   Supp.    684. 

11  Parsons  v.  Moses,  40  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  58,  57  N.  Y.  Supp. 
727. 

12  Manny  v.  National  Surety 
Co.,  103  Mo.  App.  716,  78  S.  W. 
69. 

13  Manny  v.  National  Surety 
Co.,  103  Mo.  App.  716,  78  S.  W. 
69.  A  joint  judgment  is  not  in- 
valid. Spokane,  &c.,  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Loy,  21  Wash.  501,  58  Pac.  672. 

60  Pac.  1119. 


30 


186] 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN   RIGHT. 


466 


sonably  covered  by  it  including  expenses.^^  In  some  juris- 
dictions it  is  held  that  the  action  is  of  the  same  kind  as  the 
suit  to  foreclose  the  lien,^^  and  that  it  remains  a  suit  in 
equity.i*^ 

§  186.  Loss  of  lien  by  attending  circumstances. — A  lien  may 
become  ineffective  not  only  by  waiver  or  act  of  the  parties,  but 
by  some  peculiar  circumstances  brought  into  existence  either 
by  act  of  the  parties  themselves  or  otherwise.  Thus  where  the 
property  is  located  in  two  states,  it  will  not  be  presumed  that 
it  was  the  intention  to  have  a  lien.^  So  the  lien  would  be  lost 
if  the  mechanic  rescinded  the  contract  and  disposed  of  the  ma- 
terial.- But  a  lien  is  not  lost  or  destroyed  because  proceed- 
ings in  foreclosure  are  brought;  in  such  case  the  lien  is  not 
divested  when  the  property  is  sold — assuming  that  the  lien- 
holder  is  a  party  to  the  action.^  Whether  or  not 
the      destruction      of      the      structure,      the      furnishing      of 


1^  California.  —  Ah  Thaie  v. 
Quan,  3  CaL  216. 

Massachnsetts.  —  Westfield  v. 
Mayo,  122  Mass.  100,  23  Am.  Rep. 
292. 

Missouri.  —  Manny  v.  National 
Surety  Co.,  103  Mo.  App.  716,  78 
S.  W.   69. 

>'ew  York. — Dubois  v.  Her- 
mance,  56  N.  Y.  673. 

Oregon. — Henry  v.  Hand,  36 
Ore.  492,  59  Pac.  330.  Reasonable 
attorney's  fees.  Crowley  v.  Unit- 
ed States  Fidelity  &  Guaranty  Co., 
29  Wash.  268,  69  Pac.  784.  Recov- 
ery of  interest.  Spokane,  &c., 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Lroy,  21  Wash.  501, 
58  Pac.  672,  60  Pac.  1119. 

15  Cunningham  v.  Doyle,  5  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  219,  25  N.  Y.  Supp.  476; 
Kruger  v.  Braender,  3  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  275,  23  N.  Y.  Supp.  324. 

16  Schillinger     Fire-Proof      Ce- 


ment &  Asphalt  Co.  V.  Arnott,  86 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  182,  33  N.  Y.  Supp. 
343. 

1 A  contract  for  making  im- 
provements on  property  lying  in 
two  states,  providing  for  the  exe- 
cution of  notes  in  payment  se- 
cured by  collaterals,  some  of 
which  notes  did  not  mature  within 
the  time  in  which  suits  to  enforce 
a  mechanic's  lien  were  required 
to  be  brought,  is  an  implied  waiv- 
er. Harris  v.  Youngstown  Bridge 
Co.,  90  Fed.  322,  33  C.  C.  A.  69. 
See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechan- 
ics' Lien,  §  230. 

2  Barnett  v.  Stevens,  16  Ind. 
App.  420,  43  N.  E.  661,  45  N.  E. 
485. 

3  Leftwich  Lumber  Co.  v.  Flor- 
ence Mut.  Bldg.,  Loan  &  Sav. 
Assn.,  104  Ala.  584,  18  So.  48.     See 


467  LOSS  BY  ATTENDING   CIRCUMSTANCES.  [§  186 

labor  or  materials  for  the  erection  of  which  gave  rise 
to  the  lien,  will  extinguish  it,  is  a  question  upon 
which  the  courts  are  not  in  accord.  The  divergence  of  opinion 
is  caused  frequently  by  the  divergence  of  the  statutes  creating 
the  lien,  but  this  is  not  always  so.  It  may  be  stated  as  a  gen- 
eral rule  that  where  the  lien  is  on  the  land — and  incidentally 
the  building — in  the  absence  of  contract  to  the  contrary,  the  de- 
struction of  the  building  will  not  destroy  the  lien.'^  Some 
states,  however,  hold  and  with  considerable  force  of  reason 
that  when  the  building  is  destroyed  the  lien  can  not  be  held  on 
the  land.^  And  the  reason  for  this  is  that  the  land  having-  re- 
ceived  no  benefit,  it  is  unjust  and  inequitable  to  hold  it  respon- 
sible.^ The  doctrine  that  the  land  is  responsible  is  held  to  ex- 
tend to  subcontractors  as  well  as  contractors."^  It  seems  that 
the  land  is  made  liable  generally  for  the  mechanic's  lien  on  the 
theory  that  it  receives  a  benefit  and  it  would  be  inequitable  to 
destroy  or  deny  the  right  of  the  mechanic  to  compel  the  land 
to  answer  to  the  lien  :    Conversely,  if  the  land  receives  no  bene- 

also  Berger  v.  Long,  1  Walk,  (Pa.)  Federal. — Hooven     v.     Feather- 

143,  31  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  373.  stone,  111  Fed.  81,  49  C.  C.  A.  229. 

4  Illinois.  —  Paddock    v.    Stout,  Generally  although  all  the  mater- 

121  111.  571,  13  N.  E.  182;   Sontag  ials,  furnished,  upon     which     the 

V.  Brennan,  75  111.  279.  lien    accrues,     are    destroyed    or 

Indiana. — Smith      v.     Newbaur,  removed,  the  lien   still  continues 

144  Ind.  95,  42  N.  E.  40,  1094,  33  against   the   land.      Steigleman  v. 

L.  R.  A.  685;  Bratton  v.  Ralph,  14  McBride,  17  111.  300. 

Ind.  App.  153,  42  N.  E.  644.  5  Wood    v.    Wilmington    Confer- 

lowa. — Clark  v.  Parker,  58  Iowa  ence  Academy,  1  Marv.  (Del.)  416, 

509,  12  N.  W.  553.  41  Atl.  89;  Carter  v.  Humbold  Fire 

Louisiana. — Sargeant     v.     Dau-  Ins.  Co.,  12  Iowa  287;   Schukraft 
noy,  14  La.  43,  33  Am.  Dec.  573.  v.  Ruck,  6  Daly  (N.  Y.)   1;   Good- 
Minnesota. — Freeman      v.    Car-  man  v.   Baerlocher,   88   Wis.   287, 
son,  27  Minn.  516,  8  N.  W.  764.  60  N.  W.  415,  43  Am.  St.  893n. 

New  Mexico. — Armijo  v.  Moun-  e  shine  v.   Heimburger,   60   Mo. 

tain  Electric  Co.,  11  N.  Mex.  235,  App.  174. 

67  Pac.  726.  7  Goodman     v.     Baerlocher,     88 

Texas — Stuart   v.    Broome,      59  Wis.  287,  60  N.  W.  415,  43  Am.  St. 

Tex.  466.  893. 


§  186]  ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN   RIGHT.  468 

fit  then  it  ought  not  to  be  charged.  In  some  states  it  is  held 
that  the  lien  only  attaches  to  the  land  as  an  incident  to  the 
building  and  therefore  if  the  building  is  destroyed  the  lien  is 
gone.^  In  such  cases  the  doctrine  is  limited  to  instances  where 
the  entire  improvement  is  destroyed.  If  a  part  remains  as 
where  one  house  of  a  manufacturing  plant  is  destroyed,  the  lien 
will  attach  on  the  remainder.  It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  con- 
ceive of  a  good  reason  for  this  distinction.  The  part  destroyed 
confers  no  benefit  on  the  remainder,  and  why  should  it  be  held 
responsible?^  Where  the  lien  is  on  the  building  alone,  then  as 
a  matter  of  course  when  it  is  destroyed  the  lien  is  lost.^*^  The 
courts  generally  divide  in  their  conclusions  in  about  the  same 
manner  in  cases  wdiere  a  building  is  removed. ^^  There  seems 
to  be  no  good  reason  why  the  land  should  be  subjected  to  a  lien 
if  the  building  is  removed  by  any  other  act  than  that  of  the 
owner.  If  materials  are  removed  or  severed  when  they  are  in 
the  nature  of  the  fixtures,  the  lien  may  be  lost  on  such  fixtures, 
but  will  attach  and  remain  on  the  land.^^ 


8  Wigton's  Appeal,  28  Pa.  St.  lo  McLaughlin  v.  Green,  48  Miss. 
161;   Baird  v.  Otto,  12  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  175. 

510,    2    Pa.   Dist.    484;      Gross     v.  n  Bishop  v.  Honey,  34  Tex.  245. 

Camp,    4    Pa.    Co.    Ct.    461.      The  Not  lost.     Gaty  v.   Casey,   15   111. 

equity  of  a  mechanic's  lien  does  189.     A  mechanic's   lien   filed   for 

not    extend    to    the    ground    upon  the  price  of  an  engine  placed  in 

which  the  building  is  erected,  or  a  frame  building  at  the  foot  of  a 

which    is    adjacent    to    it,    except  mine    to    pump    water    therefrom, 

when  it  becomes  necessary  to  the  ceases   to   be    a   lien   against  the 

enjoyment  of  the  building.     Pres-  land    when   the   building   and   en- 

byterian  Church  v.  Stettler,  26  Pa.  gine    are    removed    entirely   away 

St.  246.  from  the  premises  covered  by  the 

9  Armijo  v.  Mountain  Electric  lien,  and  is  not  entitled  to  be 
Co.,  11  New  Mex.  235,  67  Pac.  726;  paid  out  of  the  proceeds  of  an  as- 
Linden  Steel  Co.  v.  Rough  Run  signee's  sale  of  the  land.  In  re 
Mfg.  Co.,  158  Pa.  St.  238,  27  Atl.  Willauer's  Estate,  1  Chest.  Co.  Ct. 
805,  33  W.  N.  C.   (Pa.)  244;  Mont-  (Pa.)    533. 

gomery  v.  Keystone  Fibre  Co.,   1  12  a  lien  upon  a  leasehold  es- 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  261.  tate     for     improvements       placed 


469 


LOSS   BY   TRANSFER  OF  TITLE. 


[§187 


§  187.  Loss  by  transfer  of  title. — When  the  Hen  right  has 
once  attached/  whether  by  giving  notice,-  or  making  contract,^ 
or  registration,*  or  delivery  of  material,^  or  commencement  of 
work,*'  no  transfer  thereafter  can  affect  the  lien  or  cause  it  to 
lose  its  lien  character7  If  the  right  to  a  lien  has  not  attached, 
then  the  purchaser,  without  notice,  takes  the  property  free  from 
the  lien.s  However,  the  conveyance  must  be  bona  fide.^  If 
fraudulent,  the  lien  will  not  be  lost,  even  if  notice  is  given  after 
the  conveyance.^*'  Where  the  owner  is  making  repairs  and 
sells  the  premises,  and  notifies  the  mechanics  to  discontinue 
their  work,  and  pays  them  for  what  they  have  done,  then  it  is 
held  that  he  cannot  be  held  personally  for  work  thereafter  done 


thereon,  is  not  lost  by  reason  of 
the  removal  by  a  third  person  of 
the  materials  of  which  such  im- 
provements were  composed,  al- 
though the  value  of  such  lien  may 
be  affected  by  such  removal.  Chi- 
cago Smokeless  Gas  Fuel  Co.  v. 
Lyman,  62  111.  App.  538. 

1  Salem  v.  Lane,  189  111.  593,  60 
N.  E.  37,  82  Am.  St.  481;  Blauvelt 
V.  Woodworth,  31  N.  Y.  285.  See 
Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,    §  233. 

2  Hankinson  v.  Riker,  10  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  185,  30  N.  Y.  Supp.  1040. 
See  §  149. 

3  See  §  149. 

4  Loring  v.  Flora,  24  Ark.  151. 

5  See  §  149. 

6  Allen  V.  Sales,  56  Mo.  28; 
Brown  v.  Zeiss,  59  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  345;  Meehan  v.  Williams,  2 
Daly  (N.  Y.)  367. 

7  Hotaling  v.  Cronise,  2  Cal.  60; 
Weller  v.  McNabb,  4  Sneed 
(Tenn.)    422. 

8  Loring  v.  Flora,  24  Ark.  151; 
Rose  V.  Gray,  40  Ga.  156.  Not 
registered.    Weston  v.  Dunlap,  50 


Iowa  183.  No  notice  given. 
Quimby  v.  Sloan,  2  E.  D.  Smith 
(N.  Y.)  594,  2  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
93. 

9  New  York  Lumber  &  Wood- 
working Co.  V.  Seventy-third  St. 
Bldg.  Co.,  5  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  87, 
38  N.  Y.  Supp.   869. 

10  A'ot  fraudulent. — The  owner 
of  lots  upon  which  was  a  building 
loan  mortgage,  deeded  them  to 
another  under  an  agreement 
whereby  the  latter  promised  to 
erect  buildings  thereon,  and  to 
give  a  mortgage  to  secure  pay- 
ment of  the  consideration,  and  the 
grantor  promised  to  advance  the 
balance  due  on  the  building  loan 
mortgage.  The  grantor  was  on 
the  property  after  the  deed  was 
made,  and  after  the  grantee  had 
contracted  with  plaintiff  to  do 
part  of  the  work  in  erecting  the 
buildings,  the  grantor  took  a  deed 
back  from  the  grantee  through  a 
third  person  on  default  in  the 
payment  of  the  mortgage  given  to 
him  by  the  grantee,  and  in  con- 
sideration  of   the   release   by   the 


§187 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN   RIGHT. 


470 


on  the  premises.^i  A  technical  forfeiture/^  or  surrender  of  a 
leasehold  interest  will  not  cause  a  loss  of  the  lien.^^  Neither 
will  a  surrender  to  the  vendor  by  a  purchaser  in  possession  un- 
der an  executory  agreement/^  or  to  the  wife  of  the  purchaser 
divest  a  lien  therein. ^-^  The  death  of  the  owner  after  the  lien 
has  accrued  will  not  extinguish  the  lien.^'^  However,  a  distinc- 
tion is  made  where  the  lien  has  not  become  a  consummated  one 
or  the  right  has  not  accrued  in  the  lifetime  of  the 
deceased;  then  the  lien  right  is  lost.^'  And  in  such 
cases  the  mechanic,  if  he  has  suffered  any  damage, 
would  be  compelled  to  look  to  the  estate  of  the  deceased 
for  the  same.  The  statutes  generally  take  notice  of  such  contingen- 
cies as  the  death  of  the  owner  and  provide  against  loss  by  the 
occurrence  of  death. ^^  So,  if  the  lien  right  has  not  attached 
before  the  property  goes  into  the  hands  of  a  receiver,  it  will 
have  no  priority.^^  But  if  the  right  has  attached,  the  lien  may 
be  perfected  and  vv'ill  be  enforced  against  the  property  through 
the  receiver.'-'^ 

§  188.  Loss  by  sale,  delay,  merger. — As  a  general  rule, 
where  the  statute  makes  no  provision  as  to  the  time  within 
which  a  lien  must  be  enforced,  mere  delay  will  not  cause  the 
loss  of  the  lien  right.    But  if  the  delay  is  unreasonable  a  court 


grantor  of  a  note  given  as  liqui- 
dated damages.  Held,  that  the 
transaction  was  valid,  and  did 
not  show  fraud  as  to  mechanics 
and  material  men.  Altieri  v.  Lyon, 
59  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  110,  13  N.  Y. 
Supp.  617;  Meehan  v.  Williams, 
36  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  73,  2  Daly 
(N.  Y.)  367.  Deed  as  a  mortgage. 
McAuley  v.  Mildrum,  1  Daly  (N. 
Y.)    396. 

iiDustin  V.   Schroeder,  100  HI. 
App.   118. 

12  Gaskill  V.  Trainer,  3  Cal.  334. 

13  Gaskill  V.  Trainer,  3  Cal.  334; 


Dobschuetz    v.    Holliday,    82    111. 
371. 

1^  King  V.  Smith,  42  Minn.  286, 
44  N.  W.  65;  Hoffstrom  v.  Stanley, 
14  Manitoba  227. 

15  Wingert  v.  Stone,  142  Pa.  St. 
258,  21  Atl.  812. 

16  pifer  V.  Ward,  8  Blackf. 
(Ind.)  252. 

17  Crystal  v.  Flannelly,  2  E.  D. 
Smith    (N.    Y.)    583. 

18  See  §  25. 

19  Smith  V.  Pierce,  45  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)    628,  60  N.  Y.  Supp.  1011. 

20  Arkansas.  —  Richardson  v. 
Hickman,  32  Ark.  406. 


471 


LOSS    BY    SALE DELAY MERGER. 


[§188 


of  equity  may  consider  it  such  laches  upon  the  part  of  the 
claimant  as  will  work  a  loss  of  the  right. ^  So  in  the  prose- 
cution of  a  pending  suit  an  unreasonable  delay  may  cause  a 
loss  of  the  lien.2  The  statutes  often  provide  that  a  failure  to 
enforce  the  lien  within  a  reasonable  time  will  cause  its  loss.^ 
The  mere  fact  that  the  lien  holder  does  not  assert  his  claim 
where  it  exists  on  several  properties,  when  one  is  sold  on 
judicial  process,  has  been  held  not  to  cause  a  loss  of  his  right 
to  assert  his  lien  against  the  remainder."*  However,  the  rule 
may  be  different  in  cases  where  he  is  made  a  party  and  is 
asked  to  assert  his  claim.  As  a  matter  of  course  where  the 
time  limit  is  fixed  by  statute,  and  foreclosure  is  not  had 
within  that  time,  the  right  is  lost.""  As  a  general  rule  it  may 
be  said  that  property  sold  at  a  judicial  sale  is  sold  free  from 
all  liens  but  this  will  only  apply  to  the  liens  of  parties  that 


Illinois. — Barstow  v.  McLachlan, 
99    111.   641. 

New  York. — Deady  v.  Fink,  5  N. 
Y.  Supp.  3,  24  N.  Y.  St.  734. 

Texas. — ^Fagan  v.  Boyle  Ice  Ma- 
chine Co.,  65  Tex.  324.     See  §  150. 

1  Fourteen  years  unreasonable 
time.  Stagner  v.  "Woodward, 
(Ky.)   1  S.  W.  583. 

2  A  judgment  entry  foreclosing 
a  lien  on  land  provided  that  it 
should  not  be  enforced  unless  so 
directed  by  plaintiff,  and  the  case 
should  remain  on  the  docket  for 
further  orders.  No  sale  having 
been  directed,  an  order  was  made 
four  years  later  that  the  case  be 
filed  away,  "subject  to  being  re- 
docketed."  After  four  years  more 
the  land  was  sold  by  plaintiff's 
direction.  Held,  no  such  laches 
as  would  destroy  his  lien  as 
against  the  debtor.  Pittman  v. 
Wakefield,  90  Ky.  171,  13  S.  W. 
525.    Party  must  show  reasonable 


diligence.  Erhman  v.  Kendrick, 
1  Mete.   (Ky.)    146. 

3  Expire  by  limitation  after  two 
years  from  the  date  of  such  filing. 
Burbank  v.  "Wright,  44  Minn.  544, 
47  N.  W.  162,  47  N.  Y.  162. 

■i  Appeal  of  Bank  of  Pittsburgh, 
29  Pa.  St.  330. 

5  Louisiana  Molasses  Co.  v.  Le 
Sassier,  52  La.  Ann.  2070,  28  So. 
217;  Dole  v.  Bangor  Auditorium 
Assn.,  94  Me.  532,  48  Atl.  115;  Ter- 
williger  v.  "Wheeler,  81  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  460,  81  N.  Y.  Supp.  173; 
Baldwin  v.  Jeffries,  2  Del.  Co.  Ct. 
(Pa.)  221.  Under  §  2481,  Code  Va. 
1887,  a  suit  to  enforce  a  mechan- 
ic's lien  must  be  brought  within 
six  months  after  the  whole  claim 
has  become  payable,  and  a  bill 
will  be  demurrable  which  does  not 
allege  that  this  period  has  not 
elapsed.  Savings  Bank  of  Rich- 
mond v.  Powhatan  Clay  Mfg.  Co., 
102  Va.  274,  46  S.  E.  294;   Wilson 


188] 


ANNULMENT   OR   AVOIDANCE   OF  LIEN    RIGHT. 


472 


were  properly  in  the  case  and  were  before  the  court  in  such  a 
way  that  it  was  their  duty  to  set  up  their  claims.  When 
they  are  in  court  the  lien  is  divested  and  transferred  to  the 
fund.*^  The  courts  in  construing  some  of  the  statutes  have 
held  that  a  subsequent  mechanic's  lien  will  not  be  divested 
or  lost  by  a  judicial  sale  to  satisfy  a  preceding  lien."  It  is 
thought,  however,  that  this  would  depend  upon  the  fact 
whether  or  not  the  holder  of  a  subsequent  mortgage  was 
properly  in  court.  It  is  the  policy  of  the  law,  when  property  is 
offered  at  judicial  sale  in  order  that  it  may  bring  the  best 
price  possible,  to  divest  it  of  all  possible  liens  and  relegate 
the  lienholder  to  the  funds  derived  from  the  sale.  As  a  gen- 
eral rule  where  the  owner  of  a  lesser  estate  becomes  the 
owner  of  the  larger,  the  lesser  estate  becomes  merged  and 
this  rule  is  applied  to  mechanics'  liens.^  The  mechanic's  lien 
wall  not  be  lost  in  such  case  particularly,  but  will  attach  it- 
self to  a  greater  estate.^  But  it  cannot  aft"ect  detrimentally 
the  interest  of  the  party  holding  the  larger  estate. ^^ 


V.  Rudd,  70  Wis.  98,  35  N.  W.  321. 
See    §§190,   191. 

G  Sharpe  v.  Tatnall,  5  Del.  Ch. 
302.  The  foreclosure  of  a  me- 
chanic's lien,  prior  in  time  but 
limited  to  the  building,  will  not 
devest  a  subsequent  mechanic's 
lien  upon  the  land,  the  two  liens 
attaching  on  different  properties. 
Clark  V.  Parker,  58  Iowa  509,  12 
N.  W.  553.  Under  the  Louisiana 
Law,  if  the  holder  of  a  judgment 
permitted  the  property  to  be 
sold  on  another  execution  he  has 
lost  his  lien.  Hoy  v.  Peterman, 
28  La.  Ann.  289.  Where  it  is  held 
that  if  it  is  sold  on  one  lien  of  a 
number,  the  lien  of  all  are  de- 
vested. Anschutz  V.  McClelland, 
5  Watts  (Pa.)  487;  see  also  Halla- 
han  V.  Herbert,  11  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.) 
(N.  Y.)    326,  4  Daly   (N.  Y.)    209; 


Matlack  v.  Deal,  1  Miles  (Pa.)  254. 

'  :\Ieeks  V.  Sims,  84  111.  422 
Crandall  v.  Cooper,  62  Mo.  478 
Ritchey  v.  Risley,  3  Ore.  184 
Lieb  V.  Bean,  1  Ashm.   (Pa.)   207. 

8  Blatchford  v.  Blanchard,  160 
111.  115,  43  N.  E.  794;  Jones  v. 
Crump.  53  Hun  (N.  Y.)  631,  6  N. 
Y.  Supp.  338;  Simpson  v.  Master- 
son,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  31  S.  W. 
419. 

9  The  right  to  a  mechanic's 
lien  against  a  leasehold  estate  is 
not  lost  by  the  purchase  of  such 
estate  by  the  lessor,  with  knowl- 
edge when  the  subsequent  filing 
of  the  lien  claim  is  within  the 
statutory  time.  Ellis  v.  Brisacher, 
8  Utah  108,  29  Pac.  879. 

10  Bowling  V.  Garrett,  49  Kan. 
504,  31  Pac.  135,  33  Am.  St.  37T. 


473 


LOSS   OF  LIEN   BY   RELEASE. 


189 


§  189.  Loss  or  extinguishment  of  lien  by  release. — A  lien 
right  may  be  extinguished  by  release  or  payment.  But  a 
release  to  be  valid  must  be  founded  on  a  consideration.^  In 
the  absence  of  statute  it  need  not  be  in  writing,^  and  under  the 
formalities  of  a  deed  or  mortgage,^  nor  need  a  full  considera- 
tion be  paid  if  the  transaction  is  bona  fide.'*  However,  a  re- 
lease will  not  be  extended  beyond  the  plain  import  of  the 
words  in  which  it  is  made.^  The  release  will  not  be  binding- 
or  lien  lost  if  given  on  conditions  and  the  conditions  are  not 
complied  with.'^  Neither  will  the  lien  be  lost  or  the  right  ex- 
tinguished by  the  appointment  of  a  receiver  for  either  of  the 
parties.'''  If  the  statute  requires  certain  formalities  in 
the  execution  of  the  release,  these  must  be  followed  in  order 
to  constitute  a  lawful  release.^  A  court  of  equity,  however,  may 
declare  a  release,  where  the  equities  are  such  that  the  lien  in- 
cumbrances should  be  removed  from  the  property  even 
though  these  formalities  have  not  been  complied  with.  If 
the  lien  is  on  several  houses  a  release  of  one  house  is  held 
not  to  be  a  release  of  all,  unless  that  is  the  manifest  intention 


1  Abbott  V.  Nash,  35  Minn.  451, 
29  N.  W.  65.  Modification  of 
agreement.  Mason  v.  Gass,  62 
Mo.  App.  449;  Benson  v.  Mole,  9 
Phila.  (Pa.)  66.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.    tit.   Mechanics'   Liens,    §  234. 

2  Burns  v.  Carlson,  53  Minn.  70, 
54   N.   W.    1055. 

3  Whitcomb  v.  Eustace,  6  111. 
App.  574;  Burns  v.  Carlson,  53 
Minn.  70,  54  N.  W.  1055. 

4  Burns  v.  Carlson,  53  Minn.  70, 
54  N.  W.  1055.  Should  be  deliv- 
ered. Wetherill  v.  Harbert,  2  Pa. 
St.  348. 

5  Shropshire  v.  Duncan,  25  Neb. 
485,  41  N.  W.  403.  Express  stipu- 
lation not  to  waive  lien.     Hoyt  v. 


Miner,  7  Hill.  (N.  Y.)  525.  That 
the  contract  must  receive  a  reas- 
onable construction,  and  in  the 
absence  of  language  indicating  a 
purpose  under  no  circumstances 
to  claim  a  lien,  the  Court  cannot 
suppose  the  plaintiff  intended  to 
absolutely  relinquish  the  security 
which  the  law  gave  him  for  his 
work  and  material.  McLaughlin 
V.   Reinhart,  54  Md.  71. 

f>  Albrecht  v.  Foster  Lumber  Co. 
126  Ind.  318,  26  N.  E.  157;  Katzen- 
bach  V.  Holt,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  536,  12 
Atl.  383. 

7  Barstow  v.  McLachlan,  99  111. 
641. 

8  Sulzer  V.  Ross,  8  Pa.  Dist.  573. 


§189] 


ANNULMENT   OR  AVOIDANCE   OF   LIEN    RIGHT. 


474 


of  the  parties/-'  Whether  or  not  the  release  is  effectual  is  a 
question  of  law  and  fact  to  be  determined  in  the  same  way  as 
any  other  question  of  lijke  character. ^"^  If  properly  given  a  re- 
lease or  satisfaction  destroys  the  right  to  a  lien,  and  if  the 
intention  to  release  is  clear,  the  court  will  not  hear  extrinsic 
evidence  as  to  whom  and  how  it  might  aft'ect  various  parties.^ ^ 
The  release  will  be  given  the  construction  which  the  language 
indicates. ^2  Under  some  statutes  there  is  a  penalty  attached 
where  the  lienor  refuses  to  cancel  a  void  lien.^^ 


§  190.     i^oss     or     extinguishment     of     lien — Discharge     in 
bankruptcy. — A   discharge,    in   bankruptcy,   under   the   act   of 


9  Powell  V.  Nolan,  27  Wash.  318. 
67  Pac.  712,  68  Pac.  389. 

10  Paulsen  v.  Manske,  24  111. 
App-  95.  Subcontractor  waived 
right.  Dowd  v.  Crow  205  Pa.  St. 
214,  54  Atl.  780.  Condition  com- 
plied with.  :Moore  v.  Carter,  146 
Pa.  St.  492,  23  Atl.  243,  29  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)  274.  Where,  under  an 
agreement,  an  architect  is  to  give 
orders  to  contractors  to  the  own- 
er of  the  building  on  the  execu- 
tion of  releases,  and  they  give  re- 
leases and  obtain  the  orders,  such 
releases  take  leffect  on  their  pro- 
duction to  the  architect  to  obtain 
the  order  from  him  under  the 
contract;  hence  those  executing 
the  releases  cannot  claim  me- 
chanic's liens  on  the  ground  that 
the  releases  were  not  to  take  ef- 
fect until  they  received  the 
money.  Golrick  v.  Telia,  22  R.  I. 
281,  47  Atl.  598. 

11  Paulsen  v.  Manske,  126  111. 
72,  18  X.  E.  275,  9  Am.  St.  532n. 


12  A  release. — Providence,  R.  I. 
Feb.  10,  1893.  To  whom  it  may 
concern — For  value  received,  we 
hereby  release  all  our  right  of 
lien,  title  and  interest  in  and  to 
the  estate  situated  at  No.  '  198, 
Pine  Street,  in  the  city  of  Provi- 
dence, in  the  state  of  Rhode 
Island,  for  material  furnished  and 
labor  performed  on  said  house  for 
E.  J.  Damon  &  Company,  Con- 
tractors. Held  to  release  only 
material  furnished  before  that 
time.  Jepherson  v.  Tucker,  IS 
R.  I.  429,  28  Atl.  610;  Brown  v. 
Williams,  120  Pa.  St.  24,  13  Atl. 
519,  6  Am.  St.  689. 

13  The  complaint  in  an  action 
for  the  penaltj^  given  by  Gen.  St. 
1878,  c.  90,  §  15,  for  refusing  to 
discharge  of  record  a  mechanic's 
lien  which  had  been  adjudged 
void,  failed  to  allege  that  there 
ever  was  such  a  lien,  as  it  did  not 
set  forth  the  contents  or  character 
of  the  account   or   of   the   affidavit 


475 


LOSS DISCHARGE   IN    BANKRUPTCY. 


[§190 


1867/^  or  under  the  act  of  1898,  will  extinguish  the  lien  on 
bankrupt  property/^  and  such  lien  will  be  worked  out  through 
the  proceedings.^'' 

§  191.  Loss  by  payment  of  debt. — While  there  may  be  two 
remedies  there  is  but  one  debt,  and  when  the  debt  is  paid  or  in 
some  way  satisfied,  the  lien  is  lost  or  extinguished  and  it 
makes  no  difference  whether  the  payment  be  in  money  or 
by  the  way  of  counterclaim  or  set-off  of  mutual  accounts.^ 
Where  the  debt  has  not  been  paid  in  full  or  has  been  paid  by 
taking  of  notes  and  other  security,  it  will  not  be  deemed  paid 
so  as  to  release  the  lien  unless  it  is  shown  that  such  was  the 
intention  of  the  lienor  when  he  received  the  same.^  There 
may  be  an  exception  to  this  rule  in  cases  where  it  would 
work  a  fraud  on  third  persons.^     A  partial  payment  will  re- 


verifying  it,  or  of  the  claim  of 
lien  filed  for  record,  but  showed 
only  that  isome  sort  of  verified  ac- 
count and  claim  of  lien  were  filed. 
Held,  that  this  was  insufficient  to 
show  a  cause  of  action.  Houlihan 
V.  Keller,  34  Minn.  407,  26  N.  W. 
227. 

i4Seibol  V.  Simeon,  62  Mo.  255; 
Douglas  V.  St.  Louis  Zinc  Co.,  56 
Mo.  388. 

15  Holland  v.  Cunliff,  96  Mo. 
App.  67,  69  S.  W.  737;  In  re  Ems- 
lie,  102  Fed.  291,  42  C.  C.  A.  350; 
In  re  Kerby-Dennis,  95  Fed.  116, 
36  C.  C.  A.   677. 

iG  In  re  Emslie,  102  Fed.  291, 
42  C.  C.  A.  350.  In  Seibol  v.  Sim- 
eon, 62  Mo.  255,  under  the  act  of 
1867,  it  was  held  that  if  the  pro- 
ceedings had  already  begun  in  the 
State  Court,  that  court  might 
conclude  the  matters,  but  the  rule 


under  the   act  of  1898,   would  be 
different. 

1  See  §§  68-70.  Graham  v.  Holt, 
4  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)   61. 

2  Hulburt  V.  Just,  126  Mich.  337, 
85  N.  W.  872,  8  Det.  Leg.  N.  46; 
Smalley  v.  G-earing,  121  Mich.  190, 
79  N.  W.  1114,  80  N.  W.  797;  HoU 
V.  Long,  34  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  1,  68  N. 
Y.  Supp.  522;  In  re  McFarland's 
Estate,  16  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  142.  See 
taking  security,  §  178.  See  Cash 
deposit,  §  179. 

3  Defendant,  the  holder  of  a 
mechanic's  lien,  and  other  lien- 
holders  agreed  that  the  owner 
should  pay  $500  of  a  certain 
amount  due  on  a  mortgage  loan 
of  the  owner  to  defendant,  and 
the  balance  to  the  other  lienhold- 
ers,  and  that  on  receiving  such 
payments  they  would  relinquish 
their    liens.      By      accepting     the 


192] 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN   RIGHT. 


476 


duce  the  claim  pro  tantc*  If  the  debt  is  once  paid,  the  Hen 
then  ends,  the  rights  of  third  parties  do  not  intervene,  and  it 
cannot  be  revived  or  brought  to  hfe  by  change  of  credits  or 
other  acts  between  the  parties.  Of  course,  if  the  rights  of 
third  persons  do  not  intervene  this  rule  might  not  be  so 
strictly  enforced  between  the  original  parties.^  Payment 
to  the  principal  contractor  unless  made  before  the  subcon- 
tractor's rights  attach,^  or  the  statement  is  given  as  required 
by  law,'^  will  not  amount  to  a  payment  of  the  debt  so  far  as 
the  rights  of  the  subcontractor  are  concerned.*  It  is  not 
necessary  that  the  payment  be  made  in  money  in  order  to 
constitute  a  valid  release  of  the  lien.  It  may  be  made  in  a 
note,^  or  in  any  way  that  shows  an  intention  of  the  parties 
to  satisfy  the  lien.^*^ 

§  192.  Loss  by  payment  of  debt — Subrogation. — A  person 
who  voluntarily  steps  in  and  pays  the  debts  of  a  third  person 
is  not  subrogated  to  the  rights  of  said  third  person  to  a  lien 
that  the  third  person  might  have  if  he  had  made  the  pay- 
ments.^^ 


$500  defendant's  status  as  a  lien- 
or ceased,  and  hence  he  was  not 
entitled  to  share  in  a  surplus 
arising  on  the  subsequent  fore- 
closure of  the  mortgage.  Taylor 
V.  Dutcher,  60  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
531,  69  N.  Y.  Supp.  951. 

4  Duncan  v.  Aaron,  6  Houst. 
(Del.)  566. 

5  Bopp  V.  Wittich,  88  Mo.  App. 
129;  Spaulding  v.  Burke,  33  Wash. 
679,  74  Pac.  829. 

*>  Tommasi  v.  Archibald,  114 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  838,  100  N.  Y. 
Supp.  367.     See  §§  144-146. 

7  Fairbairn  v.  Moody,  116  Mich. 
61,  74  N.  W.  386,  75  N.  W.  469. 

8  Blitz  V.  Fields,  115  Mich.  675, 


74  N.  W.  186;  Donnelly  v.  Johnes. 
58  N.  J.  Eq.  442,  44  Atl.  180;  Red 
River  Lumber  Co.  v.  Children  of 
Israel,  7  N.  Dak.  46,  73  N.  W.  203. 

9  See    §  179. 

Benneson  v.  Thayer,  23  111.  317 
[374.] 

10  Blakely  v.  Moshier,  94  Mich. 
299,  54  N.  W.  54;  Moynahan  v. 
Moore,  9  Mich.  9,  77  Am.  Dec. 
468n;  Dennis  v.  Smith,  38  Minn. 
494,  38  N.  W.  695;  Harvey  v. 
Brewer,  178  N.  Y.  5,  70  N.  E.  73. 
Fraudulent  if  purposely  made  in 
advance.  Behrer  v.  City  Subur- 
ban Homes  Co.,  114  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)    450,  100  N.  Y.   Supp.  35. 

11  Mead's  Appeal,  46  Conn.  417. 


477  PAYMENT    OF    DEBT SUBROGATION.  [§  193 

§  193.  Failure  to  satisfy  lien — Ohio  Statute. — Sec.  3190  of 
the  Ohio  statute  provides  the  manner  in  which  a  lienholder 
may  forfeit  his  lien,  and  become  liable  for  damages,  as  follows : 
If  any  lienholder,  after  the  amount  of  his  lien  or  judgment 
thereon,  with  legal  costs,  has  been  paid  or  tendered  him, 
nevertheless  proceeds  to  sell,  lease,  or  rent  such  property  as 
above  provided,  he  shall  forfeit  his  lien  and  pay  the  owner  all 
damages  arising  to  him  therefrom,  not  exceeding  the  amount 
of  the  lien  and  his  costs ;  and  if  the  lienholder,  after  the  amount 
of  his  lien  has  been  satisfied,  or  adjudged  against  him  in  an 
action  thereon,  neglect  or  refuse  on  the  written  request  of  the 
owner  within  ten  days  thereafter,  to  file  a  certificate  of  such 
satisfaction  or  adjudication  with  the  county  recorder,  which 
shall  be  entered  by  him  on  the  margin  of  the  record  of  the  lien, 
such  lienholder  shall  be  liable  to  the  owner  for  all  damages 
arising  therefrom,  not  exceeding  the  amount  of  the  lien  and 
costs. ^2 

§  194.  Application  of  payments  made  on  debt. — If  the  payor 
does  not  designate  how  the  payments  shall  be  applied,  the 
payee  may  apply  it  to  any  debt  owing  him  by  the  payor. ^  If 
neither  the  payor  nor  payee  make  an  application,  the  court 
will  apply  it  to  the  debt  that  has  the  least  security,-  or  to  the 

12  74  Ohio  Laws  v.  168,  §7;    (S.  tana    Gold    &    Silver    Min.    Co.,    1 

&  C.  836).  Mont.  44. 

1  Indiana.  —  Brigham     v.     De  Wisconsin. — Rinzel     v.    Stumpf, 

Wald,    7    Ind.  App.   115,   34   N.   E.  116  Wis.  287,  93  N.  W.  36. 

498.  United   States.   —  Caldwell     v. 

Michigan.— Union    Trust    Co.    v.  Winder,  2  Hayw.  &  H.  24,  30  Fed. 

Casserly,  127  Mich.  183,  86  N.  W.  Cas.  18,245.     See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 

545,  8  Det.  Leg.  N.  278.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  239. 

Missouri. — Weis   Ridge   v.   Mer-  2  Casey    v.    Weaver,    141  Mass. 

cantile  Loan,  &c.,  Co.,  56  Mo.  App.  280,  6  N.  E.  372;  Caldwell  v.  Win- 

155.  der,  2  Hayw.  &  H.  24,  30  Fed.  Cas. 

Montana. — Christnot     v.      Mon-  18,245.     To  tracts  sold  first,  Dun- 

gan  V.   Dollman,   64   Ind.   327. 


194] 


ANNULMENT  OR  AVOIDANCE  OF   LIEN   RIGHT. 


478 


earliest  item,^  or  to  non-lienable  items. ^  Where  there  is  a 
joint  lien  against  several  houses  and  the  lien  is  released 
on  one,  the  payment  made  to  secure  such  release,  should 
be  first  applied  on  the  house  released  and  then  pro  rata  on 
the  balance. °  If  payments  are  made  to  a  subcontractor  for 
work  on  two  houses,  with  no  direction  on  which  it  is  to  be 
applied,  he  may  apply  it  on  either.*^  And  if  he  does  not  apply 
it.  the  court  will  pro  rate  it.  If  payment  is  made  on  a  certain 
contract,  it  must  be  applied  on  that  particular  contract  even 
if  payments  are  made  before  required."  Unless  sufficient  is 
paid  to  lift  the  entire  debt  on  a  number  of  houses  and  pay- 
ments have  been  indiscriminately  made,  the  lien  will  still 
exist. ^  The  same  is  true  where  the  debt  is  for  lienable  and 
non-lienable  items.^  The  taking  of  a  note  unless  so  intended 
will  not  be  considered  as  applied  on  the  lien  debt.^*^  Where 
the  statute  directs  the  distribution  of  payments,  this  of  course 
controls. ^^  When  a  credit  is  made  to  a  certain  account,  it 
cannot  be  changed  to  afifect  the  lien,^^  unless  the  credit  was 
in  fact  a  mistake, ^^  or  the  change  has  been  made  by  consent 


3  Dey  V.  Anderson,  39  N.  J.  L. 
199;  Reynolds  v.  Patten,  5  Misc. 
(N.   Y.)    215,   25   N.   Y.   Supp.   100. 

4  North  V.  La  Flesh,  73  Wis.  520, 
41  N.  W.  633. 

5  Powell  V.  Nolan,  27  Wash.  318, 
67  Pac.  712,  68  Pac.  389. 

6  See  §  195.  Smith  v.  Wilcox, 
44  Ore.  323,  74  Pac.  708,  75  Pac. 
710. 

7  Post  V.  Campbell,  83  N.  Y. 
279.  Where  a  person,  who  is 
erecting  a  building  and  has  pur- 
chased lumber  of  a  merchant,  be- 
comes possessed  of  a  note  of  the 
merchant  payable  in  lumber  of  a 
greater  amount  than  that  already 
purchased,  and  afterwards  pur- 
chases more  than  the  balance  of 
the  note,  and  a  lien  is  fixed  by  the 


merchant,  the  claim  is  pro  tanto 
extinguished  by  the  note.  Hop- 
kins V.  Conrad,  2  Rawle  (Pa.) 
316. 

8  Gantner  v.  Kemper,  58  Mo. 
567. 

9  Dennis  v.  Smith,  38  Minn.  494, 
38  N.  W.  695. 

10  Bayard  v.  McGraw,  1  111.  App. 
134;  Turner  v.  St.  John,  8  N.  Dak. 
245,  78  N.  W.  340.     See  §    176. 

11  Schallert-Ganahl  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Neal,  91  Cal.  362,  27  Pac.  743; 
Smalley  v.  Gearing,  121  Mich. 
190,  79  N.  W.  1114,  80  N.  W.  797. 

12  Petersen  v.  Shain,  (Cal.)  33 
Pac.  1086;  Hopkins  v.  Conrad,  2 
Rawle  (Pa.)  316. 

13  Green  Bay   Lumber     Co.     v. 


479  PAYMENT   OF    SUBCONTRACTOR.  [§  195 

of  the  parties,  and  the  rights  of  third  persons  are  not  affected.^'* 
If  part  payment  is  made  it  is  error  to  enter  finding  for  the  full 
amount. 1^ 

§  195.     Payment  to  subcontractor  affecting  lien  rights. — If 

the  owner  pays  valid  claims  of  a  subcontractor  under  circum- 
stances that  will  justify  him  in  so  doing,  this  extinguishes 
the  lien  that  might  otherwise  be  had  on  the  premises  by  either 
the  contractor  or  subcontractor  under  him.  For  instance,  if 
the  subcontractor  should  secure  a  judgment  against  the  con- 
tractor, and  the  owner  pays  it  in  order  to  save  his  property  he 
will  be  entitled  to  take  the  sum  so  paid,  and  the  attaching 
costs  from  the  claim  of  the  contractor,^  and  will  be  entitled  to 
take  the  same  from  the  claims  of  others  who  were  subsequent  and 
not  in  the  same  class  of  priority  as  the  subcontractor  that  was 
paid.2  The  same  rule  will  be  applied  where  the  subcontractor 
files  his  claim  with  the  owner,  who,  after  notice  to  the  contractor 
as  provided  by  statute,  paid  the  claim  without  objection  from 
the  contractor.^  The  owner  cannot  assume  the  right  to  pay 
claims  of  subcontractors  and  deduct  the  same  from  the  claim 
of  the  contractor  without  his  consent  or  a  statutory  permission 
so  to  do,*  and  can  only  claim  such  right  when  he  is  under 
legal  obligation  to  make  the  payment.^  If  the  claim  of  the  sub- 
Thomas,  106  Iowa  154,  76  N.  W.  Vandenberg  v.  Walton  Lumber 
651.  Co.,  —  Okla.  — ,  92  Pac.  149.     See 

14  Green   Bay     Lumber     Co.   v.      Dec.    &   Am.    Dig.    tit.    Mechanics' 
Thomas,  106  Iowa  420,  76  N.  W.      Liens,  §240. 

749.  ~  Dunlop  v.   Kennedy,   (Cal.)    34 

15  Clark  V.   Huey,   12   Ind.  App.      Pac.  92. 

224,  40  N.  E.  152.  3  Nutriment  Co.  v.  George  Green 

1  Clancy  v.  Plover,  107  Cal.  272,      Lumber   Co.,    94    111.     App.      342; 
40   Pac.   394;    Whittier  v.  Wilbur,      Baxter  v.    Sisters   of   Charity,    15 
48  Cal.  175.     Including  attorney's      La.  Ann.  686. 
fees,   where   allowed.     Covell     v.  *  Walker   v.    Newton,    53      Wis. 

Washburn,    91    Cal.    560,    27    Pac.      336,  10  N.  W.  436. 
859.    Neither  owner  nor  contract-         5  California, — Adams     v.      Bur- 
or    can    be    held    for    more    than      bank,   103   Cal.   646,   37    Pac.   640; 
their  respective  contract  calls  for.      Southern    California    Lumber    Co. 


§  195] 


ANNULMENT  OR   AVOIDANCE  OF   LIEN    RIGHT. 


480 


contractor  is  a  valid  one,  the  owner  may  pay  it,  and  claim  it 
as  a  credit  against  any  claim  that  the  principal  contractor  may 
have."  Whatever  payment  the  owner  may  make  to  a  con- 
tractor before  the  subcontractor's  right  becomes  fixed  and 
attaches  to  whatever  may  be  due  or  become  due  to  the  con- 
tractor as  provided  by  statute,  such  a  payment  to  the  prmci- 
pal  contractor  is  a  valid  one  and  cannot  be  questioned  by  the 
subcontractor.^  The  same  rule  will  be  applied  to  a  demand 
made  by  a  principal  contractor  to  a  subcontractor,  in  regard 
to  the  rights  of  their  subcontractors.''  But  if  the  owner  makes 
payments,  when  by  the  statute  it  is  his  duty  to  withhold  the 
same  in  order  to  meet  the  claims  of  either  contractor,  sub- 
contractor or  material  man,  he  does  so  at  his  peril. ^"^ 


V.    Jones,    133    Cal.    242,    65    Pac, 
378. 

Missouri. — Schroeder  v.  Muel- 
ler, 33  Mo.  App.  28. 

]Vew  Jersey. — Foster  v.  Rudder- 
ow,   (N.  J.  Eq.)   3  Atl.  694. 

Ji^ew  York. — Kenyon  v.  Walsh, 
31  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  634,  66  N.  Y. 
Supp.  35. 

6  Kirtland  v.  Moore,  40  N.  J.  Eq. 
106,  2  Atl.  269. 

8  California. — Southern  Califor- 
nia Lumber  Co.  v.  Jones,  133  Cal. 
242,  65  Pac.  378;  Newport  Wharf 
&c.,  Co.  V.  Drew,  125  Cal.  585,  58 
Pac.  187. 

Louisiana. — Vordenbaumen     v. 
Bartlett,  105  La.  752,  30  So.  219; 
Willey  V.  St.  Charles  Hotel  Co.,  52 
La.  Ann.  1581,  28  So.  182. 

Maine. — Bryant  v.  Grady,  98  Me. 
389,   57   Atl.   92. 

Michigan. — Smalley  v.  Gearing, 
121  Mich.  190,  79  N.  W.  1114,  80 
N.  W.  797. 

New  York. — Garden  City  Co.  v. 
Schnugg,  39  Misc.   (N.  Y.)  840,  81 


N.  Y.  Supp.  496;  Harvey  v.  Brew- 
er, 178  N.  Y.  5,  70  N.  E.  73,  also 
82  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  589,  81  N. 
Y.    Supp.    846. 

Rhode  Island.  —  Cusson  v. 
Gemme,  19  R.  I.  507,  34  Atl.  1115. 

Te.xas. — Baumgarten  v.  Mauer, 
(Tex.    Civ.    App.),    60    S.   W.    451. 

Virginia, — Schrieber  v.  Citizens 
Bank,  99  Va.  257,  38  S.  E.  134. 

9  Lawrence  v.  Dawson,  167  N.  Y. 
609,   60  N.   E.   1115. 

iij  Alabama.  —  Alabama,  &c., 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Tisdale,  139  Ala. 
250,  36  So.  618. 

California. — Wilson  v.  Nugent, 
124  Cal.  280,  57  Pac.  1008. 

Georgia. — Green  v.  Farrar  Lum- 
ber Co.,  119  Ga.  30,  46  S.  E.  62. 

Louisiana. — Vordenbaumen  v. 
Bartlett,  105  La.  752,  30  So.  219. 

Michigan. — Hannah,  &c.,  Mer- 
cantile Co.  v.  Hartzell,  125  Mich. 
177,  84  N.  W.  52,  7  Det.  Leg.  N. 
470;  Blitz  v.  Fields,  118  Mich.  85, 
76  N.  W.  119. 

New  York. — Lawrence  v.  Daw- 
son, 167  N.  Y.  609,  60  N.  E.  111.'); 


481  PAYMENT  TO  SUBCONTRACTOR.  [§  195 

HarLey    v.     Hapes-Reeves    Const.      584;    Wolf   v.    Mendelsohn,   87    N. 
Co.,  33  Misc.   (N.  Y.)   626,  68  N.  Y.       Y.  Supp.  465. 

Supp.    191;    Riley    v.    Kenney,    33  Virgiuia. — Schrieber  v.  Citizens 

Misc.   (N.  Y.)   384,  67  N.  Y.  Supp.       Bank,  99  Va.   257,  38  S.  E.  134,  3 

Va.  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  185. 


31 


CHAPTER  7. 

PROCEEDINGS  TO  ENFORCE   LIENS  AND  PAY   INDEBTEDNESS   SECURED 

THEREBY. 


Sec,  Sec. 

196.  Generally.  213. 

197.  Kind  of  action. 

198.  Bxclusiveness       of       remedy      214. 
provided  by  statute.  215. 

199.  Remedy  where  improve- 
ments have  been  removed. 

200.  Performance  of  required 
conditions. 

201.  Compelling  and  restraining 
foreclosure    proceedings. 

202.  Owner  may  require  lien- 
holder  to  commence  suit — 
Ohio  statute. 

203.  Owner  may  require  lienhold- 
er  to  commence  suit — Indi- 
ana statute. 

204.  Different  liens  joined  in  the 
same  foreclosure  proceeding. 

205.  Defenses. 

206.  Contractor  to  defend  action 
— Ohio   statute. 

207.  Defenses — Want  of  title. 

208.  Defenses — Waiver  and  es- 
toppel. 

209.  Defense  of  set-off  and  coun-      216. 
ter-claim. 

210.  Defenses — Damage  by  reason 
of    default   of   contractor. 

211.  Who  entitled  to  bring  action 
to  foreclose. 

212.  Venue  of  action  or  jurisdic- 
tion of  court. 


482 


Limitation  of  action  to  en- 
force lien. 

When  action  may  be  brought. 
Remedy  by  action  under  the 
Ohio  statute. 

1.  Kinds  of  actions. 

2.  Averments  of  petition. 

3.  Defenses. 

4.  Trial. 

5.  Form  of  petition  by  con- 
tractor against  owner  for 
personal  judgment  and 
foreclosure. 

6.  Form  of  petition  when 
parties  act  under  contract. 

7.  Form  of  petition  for  fore- 
closure of  lien  by  subcon- 
tractor against  owner. 

8.  Form  of  petition  in  action 
for  money  had  and  re- 
ceived by  subcontractor 
where  he  has  not  been 
paid  according  to  Sec. 
3200   (231a). 

Remedies  under  the  Indiana 
statute. 

1.  Who  may  bring  action. 

2.  Where  brought. 

3.  When  to  be  brought. 

4.  Complaint   or   petition    . 

5.  Parties. 

6.  Trial. 

7.  Judgment. 

8.  Distribution    of    proceeds. 


483 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


[§196 


Sec.  Sec, 

217.  Remedies  under  the  Indiana      236, 
statute — Forms        of        com- 
plaints. 237. 

1.  Form  of  petition  or  com- 
plaint   by    principal    con-      238. 
tractor. 

2.  Form  of  petition  or  com- 
plaint of  subcontractor.  239. 

3.  Form  of  petition  or  com- 
plaint  of  material   man. 

218.  Various  matters  determining  240. 
limitation  of  right  to  sue. 

219.  Various  matters  determining 
limitation    of    right    to    sue,      241. 
continued. 

220.  When  suit  is  regarded  as  242. 
brought.  243. 

221.  Parties  plaintiff. 

222.  Parties   defendant   generally.      244. 

223.  Parties       defendant  —  Neces- 
sary. 

224.  Parties  defendant — Proper.  245. 

225.  Parties  defendant  —  Owners  246. 
of  legal  title. 

226.  Parties  defendant  — Fraudu-  247. 
lent  vendees.  248. 

227.  Parties  defendant— Execut-  249. 
ors  and  administrators — Ef-  250. 
feet  of  failure  to  join  proper  251. 
parties.  252. 

228.  Parties  defendant  —  Mort-  253. 
gagees   and   incumbrancers. 

229.  Parties  defendant — Contract-  254. 
or. 

230.  Party    by    addition,    substitu- 
tion or  intervention.  255. 

231.  Party — Right  of  intervention. 

232.  Process — Summons.  256. 

233.  Personal      and     constructive 
service.  257. 

234.  Process — Miscellaneous  mat-  258. 
ters. 

235.  Pleading — Declaration,     peti- 
tion, form. 


,  Pleading — .Petition  —  Allega- 
tions of. 

Petition — Prayer     for     relief 
and  description  of  property. 
Petition — Averment    of    own- 
ership and  description  of  im- 
provements. 

Petition — Averment  of  rendi- 
tion of  services  or  furnish- 
ing of  material. 
Pleading — Averment  of  con- 
sent or  contract  with  the 
owner. 

Petition     stating    contract — 
Completion  of  work. 
Petition  of  subcontractor. 
Petition  —  Itemized         state- 
ment— Notice  to  owner. 
Petition — Statement      as      to 
claim — Jointly  where  made — 
Verification. 
Pleading — Answer. 
Pleading — Answer  —  General 
matters. 
Cross  petition. 
Reply. 
Demurrer. 

Pleadings — Amendments. 
Pleadings — Issue. 
Issue — Matters  to  be  proven. 
Matter       to       be       specially 
pleaded. 

Variance  between  pleadings 
and  papers  necessary  to  per- 
fect lien. 

Variance  between  averments 
and  proof. 

Evidence — Rules  and  pre- 
sumptions. 

Evidence — ^Burden   of  proof. 
Evidence  —  Admissibility  — 
General    rule — Ownership    of 
premises. 


§196] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


484 


Sec. 

259.  Evidence — Kind  and  value 
of  work — Contract. 

260.  Evidence — Book  accounts — 
Lien   claim — Pleading. 

261.  Evidence — Weigtit  and  suffi- 
ciency. 

262.  Evidence  —  Completion  of 
work — Consent  of  owner — 
Indebtedness. 

263.  Miscellaneous  matters  before 
trial. 

264.  Miscellaneous  matters  before 
trial — Reference. 

265.  Trial. 

266.  Trial— Jury. 

267.  Questions  of  law  and  fact. 

268.  Instructions  to  jury. 

269.  Verdict  and  findings. 

270.  Verdict  and  findings,  con- 
tinued. 

271.  Findings — Decree  or  judg- 
ment. 

272.  Judgment  by  default — Suffi- 
ciency— Description. 

273.  Judgment  —  Conformity  to 
previous  proceedings. 

274.  Order  of  sale — Priorities  and 
distribution. 

275.  Order  of  sale — Interest  on 
claim — Effect   of  order. 

276.  Order  of  sale — Parties  af- 
fected— Judgment  against — 
Setting  same  aside — Collat- 
eral attack. 

277.  Matters  relating  to  enforce- 
ment— Writ  of  execution  for 
order  of  sale. 

278.  Sale  in  general. 

279.  Sale — Other    incumbrances. 

280.  Sale — Conduct   and  validity. 

281.  Confirmation  of  sale. 

282.  Removal  of  building. 


Sec. 

283.  Redemption — Description      in 

deed. 
2S4.  Proceedings       and       liability 

where  lien  right  fails  to  pay 

claim. 
285.  Proceedings    when    defective 

title  defeats  sale  of  property 

on    execution   to   satisfy    lien 

— Ohio  statute. 
2S6.  Destruction     of     structure — 

Liability  to   subcontractor. 

287.  Personal  judgment,  when 
may  be  obtained. 

288.  Remedy  of  subcontractor 
when  his  contractor  or  own- 
er refuses  to  pay — Ohio 
statutes. 

289.  Personal  liability  of  the  own- 
er under  the  Indiana  statute. 

290.  Personal  liability  under  In- 
diana statute — Notice. 

291.  Personal  liability  under  In- 
diana statute — Actions. 

292.  Personal  judgment — Miscel- 
laneous matters. 

293.  Proceeds  of  sale. 

294.  Proceeds  of  sale — Surplus. 

295.  Appeal    and   error. 

296.  Methods  of  preserving  ques- 
tions   for    review — Notice. 

297.  Proceedings  and  record — 
Appeal   or  error. 

298.  Error  and  appeal — Miscel- 
laneous. 

299.  Costs. 

300.  Attorney's  fees  under  the 
Indiana  statute. 

301.  Costs — ^Attorney's  fees — Mis- 
cellaneous. 

302.  Costs — Owner  under  disabil- 
ity. 


485  ENFORCEMENT   OF    LIEN.  [§  196 

§  196.  Generally. — We  have  thus  far  considered  the  substantive 
part  of  the  law  relating  to  mechanics'  Hens.  We  now  come  to 
that  branch  of  the  law  which  has  to  do  with  the  methods  to  be 
pursued  to  convert  the  property  into  money  and  satisfy  the 
indebtedness  secured  by  the  lien.  This  is  the  remedial  part 
of  the  law  relating-  to  mechanic's  liens.  Whatever  may  be  the 
differences  of  opinion  of  the  various  courts  upon  the  question 
of  the  construction  of  these  statutes — whether  strict  or  other- 
wise— they  all  agree  that  the  remedial  part  of  the  law  should 
receive  a  liberal  construction  so  as  to  carry  out  its  purpose 
and  object  and  that  if  the  mechanic  has  complied  with  the 
statute  in  such  a  way  as  to  create  a  lien  on  the  property 
they  will  not,  by  strict  construction,  defeat  its  enforcement. 
Considering  that  the  right  to  the  lien  is  statutory  and 
that  the  procedure  varies  in  the  different  states,  it  will  be 
difficult  in  all  cases  to  give  general  rules  that  will  be  appli- 
cable to  all  the  states.  The  statute  in  each  state  must  always 
be  consulted  and  the  action  brought  in  conformity  thereto. 
However,  the  object  sought  to  be  accomplished  is  the  same 
under  all  the  statutes, — that  is,  the  property  upon  which  the 
labor  or  materials  have  been  furnished  should  be  held  liable 
to  the  payment  of  the  same  and  may  be  sold  and  out  of  its 
proceeds,  such  labor  or  material  claims  shall  be  paid.  There 
must,  however,  be  a  form  of  action  applicable  to  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  lien  under  the  law  of  the  state  in  which  the  action 
is  brought  or  the  remedy  will  fail.^  It  is  well  settled  that  an 
action  brought  on  the  debt  does  not  bar  an  action  on  the  lien ; 
the  remedy  on  the  lien  is  cumulative,  it  is  only  extinguished 
by  a  satisfaction  of  the  debt.^  The  mere  fact  that  the  lien 
covers  several  pieces  of  property  w^ill  not  prevent  its  enforce- 

1  Kimball  v.  Moody,  97  Ga.  Nunnally  v.  Dorand,  110  Ala.  539, 
549,   25   S.   E.   338.     No   action   to      18   So.    5. 

persons    not   included    in    statute.  2  Spence    v.    Etter,    8    Ark.    69; 

Wescott  V.  Bunker,  83  Me.  499,  22 


197] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


486 


ment  against  one  piece  or  a  part  of  one  piece.^  Generally 
the  enforcement  of  the  lien  is  not  of  such  a  common  law  na- 
ture as  to  require  a  jury  trial  but  whatever  method  the  statute 
provides  must  be  followed.^  And  furthermore  as  the  action 
is  always  in  rem,  the  property  must  be  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  court  or  the  action  will  fail.^ 

§  197.  Kind  of  action. — While  the  proceeding  is  of  a  statu- 
tory nature,  it  is  generally  regarded  as  being  of  an  equitable 
character  and  enforceable  in  a  court  of  equity,^  and  according 
to  the  rules  of  such  court.^  And  even  where  the  proceeding 
is  regarded  as  a  legal  action,  yet  in  order  that  the  remedy 
may  not  fail,  a  court  of  equity  will  grant  relief  if  it  cannot 


Atl.  388;   Pairo  v.  Bethell,  75  Va. 
825. 

3  Mills  V.  Paul,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.) 
30   S.  W.  558. 

4  Allen  V.  Schweigert,  110  Ga. 
323,  35  S.  E.  315;  Frost  v.  Clark, 
82  Iowa  298,  48  N.  W.  82;  Ryman 
V.  Lynch,  76  Iowa  587,  41  N.  W. 
320. 

5  Where  lands  are  out  of  the 
jurisdiction,  the  Court  cannot  af- 
fect them  otherwise  than  by  pro- 
ceeding in  personam  and  cannot 
therefore  enforce  a  mechanic's 
lien  by  sale  of  land  out  of  the 
jurisdiction.  Chadwick  v.  Hunter, 
1  Manitoba  363. 

1  Alabama. — Montandon  v.  Deas, 
14  Ala.  33,  48  Am.  Dec.  84. 

Colorado.  —  Clear  Creek,  &c., 
Min.  Co.  V.  Root,  1  Colo.  374. 

Illinois.— Reed  v.  Boyd,  84  111. 
66;  Clarke  v.  Boyle,  51  111.  104; 
Lomax  v.  Dore,  45  111.  379;  Ross 
V.   Derr,  18  111.   245. 


Mississippi. — Bowman  v.  Mc- 
Laughlin, 45  Miss.  461. 

Oregon. — Ming  Yue  v.  Coos 
Bay,  &c.,  R.  &  Nav.  Co.,  24  Ore. 
392,  22  Pac.  641.  Facts  constitut- 
ing equitable  action  only.  Faville 
V.  Hadcock,  39  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.) 
397,  80  N.  Y.  Supp.  23.  Subcon- 
tractor. Bailey  Const.  Co.  v. 
Purcell,  88  Va.  300,  13  S.  E.  456. 
"So  far  as  the  builder  or  party 
contracting  a  debt  is  concerned, 
a  suit  to  enforce  a  mechanic's 
lien  is  an  ordinary  action  in  per- 
sonam, combined  with  an  action 
quasi  in  rem  to  establish  and  en- 
force a  lien  on  defined  interests 
in  the  building  and  land  in  ques- 
tion. Vreeland  Bldg.  Co.  v. 
Knickerbocker  Sugar  Refining 
Co.  (N.  J.  L.),  68  Atl.  215.  See 
§§  215-217. 

2  Illinois. — McGraw  v.  Bayard, 
96  111.  146;  Sutherland  v.  Ryer- 
son,  24  111.  518;  Hamilton  v.  Dunn, 


487 


EXCLUSIVENESS  OF  REMEDY  OF  STATUTE. 


[§198 


be  given  in  a  common  law  court.^  However,  in  all  cases  where 
a  court  of  equity  once  acquires  jurisdiction,  it  cannot  be  trans- 
ferred into  an  action  at  law  by  the  act  of  the  defendant  in  inter- 
posing a  defense  of  a  common  law  character.^  It  is  well 
settled,  that  the  action  is  not  personal  but  one  in  rem.^  And 
it  is  not  necessary  that  the  property  be  seized  in  order  to 
acquire  jurisdiction,  the  bringing  of  the  suit  is  sufficient.^ 
Some  courts  regard  the  action  as  an  ordinary  civil  action,'^ 
and  others  a  special  proceeding,^  depending  entirely  upon  the 
statutes  under  consideration.^ 


22  111.  259;  Shaffer  v.  Weed,  8  111. 
511.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit. 
Mechanics'  Liens,  §  245. 

Iowa. — Greenough  v.  Wigginton, 
2  G.  Greene   (Iowa)  435. 

Missouri.  —  Pittsburgh  Plate 
Glass  Co.  V.  Peper,  96  Mo.  App. 
910,  70  S.  W.  910.  Kimball  v. 
Cook,  6  111.  423.  "The  action  for 
a  mechanic's  lien  is  not  a  pro- 
ceieding  against  property.  It  must 
be  commenced  as  an  ordinary  ac- 
tion upon  account.  It  must  be 
against  some  person  by  name  as 
defendant,  and  can  only  be  by 
virtue  of  a  contract  with  the 
owner  of  the  land."  Miller  v. 
Hollingsworth,  33  Iowa  224. 

3  The  remedy  to  enforce  a  me- 
chanic's lien  is  ordinarily  at  law; 
but  where  the  debtor  is  insolvent, 
and  has  left  the  state,  a  bill  in 
equity  will  lie  to  enforce  the  lien, 
and  creditors  of  the  debtor  might 
well  be  made  parties  to  the  bill 
to  prevent  circuity  of  action  and 
for  the  greater  safety  of  all  con- 
cerned. Foust  V.  Wilson,  22  Tenn. 
31. 

4  Kilroy  v.  Mitchell,  2  Wash. 
407,    26   Pac.   865. 


5  Iowa, — Simmonson  Bros.  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Citizens'  State  Bank,  105 
Iowa  264,  74  N.  W.  905. 

Maryland. — Miller  v.  Barroll, 
14   Md.   173. 

]Vew  Jersey.  —  Washburn  v. 
Burns,  34  N.  J.  L.  18;  Gordon  v. 
Torrey,  15  N.  J.  Eq.  112,  82  Am. 
Dec.  273. 

New   York. — Marryatt  v.   Riley, 

2  Abb.  N.  Cas.   (N.  Y.)   119. 
Wisconsin. — Dean  v.   Pyncheon, 

3  Chand.    (Wis.)    9. 

Federal. — Homans  t.  Coombe, 
3  Cranch.  C.  C.  365,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    6,654. 

6  Heidreitter  v.  Elizabeth  Oil 
Cloth  Co.,  112  U.  S.  294,  28  L.  ed. 
729,  5  Sup.  Ct.  135;  Bernhardt  v. 
Brown,  118  N.  Car.  700,  24  S.  E. 
527,  36  L.   R.   A.  402. 

7  Finlayson  v.  Crooks,  47  Minn. 
74,  49  N.  W.  398,  645;  Doughty 
V.  Devlin,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.) 
625. 

8  Hallahan  v.  Herbert,  57  N.  Y. 
409. 

9  Taylor  v.  Tennessee  Lumber 
Co.,  107  Tenn.  41,  63  S.  W.  1130. 
By  attachment.  Warner  v.  A.  H. 
Yates  &   Co.,   118   Tenn.   548,   102 


§198] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF    LIEN. 


488 


§  198.     Exclusiveness  of  remedy  provided  by  statute. — The 

action  usually  provided  by  statute  is  not  regarded  as  giving 
an  exclusive  remedy;  it  is  merely  cumulative,  and  the  debtor 
may  pursue  whatever  other  remedy  he  may  have  to  secure 
payment  of  his  debt.^  And  he  may  at  the  same  time  pursue 
his  several  remedies  for  satisfaction  of  the  debt,  as  by  bringing 
an  action  in  rem  against  the  property  and  in  personam 
against  the  person.^  However,  a  remedy  that  applies  only  to 
one  particular  class  of  mechanics'  liens  can  not  be  used  for 
another  or  a  different  class.^  The  mechanic  cannot  secure  his 
lien  by  holding  possession  of  the  real  estate  unless  the  con- 
tract gives  him  that  privilege.'*  And  therefore  unlike  a  com- 
mon law  lien  he  does  not  lose  his  right  by  surrendering  pos- 
session, neither  does  he  lose  his  right  by  pursuing  or  bringing 


S.  W.  92.  Provisions  of  the  me- 
chanic's lien  act  are  not  to  be 
construed  so  as  to  render  the 
remedy  thereby  provided  impossi- 
ble of  enforcement.  Miller  v. 
Calumet  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.,  121 
111.  App.  56. 

1  Arkansas. — Murray  v.  Rapley, 
30   Ark.   568. 

Illinois. — Templeton  v.  Home, 
82  111.  491;  West  v.  Flemming,  18 
111.  248,  68  Am.  Dec.  539. 

Michigan. — Cady  v.  Fair  Plain 
Literary  Assn.,  135  Mich.  295.  97 
N.  W.  680,  10  Det.  Leg.  N.  725. 

Mississippi. — Ehlers  v.  Elder, 
51  Miss.  495. 

New  York. — Hall  v.  Bennett,  16 
Jones  &  S.  (N.  Y.  Super  Ct.)  302; 
Biershenk  v.  Stokes,  18  N.  Y. 
Supp.  854;  Maxey  v.  Larkin,  2  E. 
D.  Smith    (N.  Y.)    540. 

Texas. — Lippencott  v.   York,   86 


Tex.  276,  24  S.  W.  275.  See  Dec. 
&  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§246. 

2  The  rule  is  general,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  some  provision  to  the 
contrary,  that  the  remedy  upon  a 
mechanic's  lien  and  the  remedy 
upon  the  debt  are  concurrent  and 
may  be  pursued  at  the  same  time 
or  in  succession.  (Phillips,  Me- 
chanics' Liens  (3d  Ed.)  311;  2 
Jones  on  Liens,  1552;  West  v. 
Swasey.  16  Cal.  141,  76  Am.  Dec. 
507 ;  Marean  v.  Stanley,  5  Colo. 
App.  335,  38  Pac.  395;  Oilman  v. 
Illinois  &  Mississippi  Telegraph 
Co.,  91  U.  S.  603,  616,  23  L.  ed. 
405;  2  Jones  on  Mortgages  (2d 
Ed.)  §§  1215-1222.)  Hatcher  v. 
Hendrie  &  Bolthoff  Mfg.,  &c.,  Co., 
133  Fed.  267,  68  C.  C.  A.  19. 

3  Columbus  Iron  Works  Co.  v. 
Loudon,  53  Ga.  433. 

1  Pratt  V.  Tudor,  14  Tex.   37. 


489  WHERE  IMPROVEMENTS  HAVE  BEEN  REMOVED.  [§  199 

a  common  law  action.^  If  he  seeks  a  personal  judgment,  then 
the  rules  relating  to  the  enforcement  of  that  kind  of  a  claim 
apply.''  Of  course  if  there  is  a  privity  of  contract  between 
the  parties  and  the  claim  rests  on  that  fact,  the  showing  of 
the  contract  will  be  sufficient,  but  where  the  claim  rests 
purely  upon  the  statute,  a  person  must  bring  himself  within 
the  statute  even  before  he  can  obtain  personal  judgment.^  Where 
several  actions  have  been  consolidated,  the  non-suiting  of  one 
claimant  does  not  affect  his  right  to  a  judgment  against  other 
defaulting  defendants.^  If  the  action  for  a  lien  against  the 
owner  fails  a  judgment  may  be  rendered  against  the  contrac- 
tor where  the  contractor  has  been  joined  in  the  action.^ 

§  199.     Remedy  where  improvements  have  been  removed. — 

The  remedy  to  be  pursued  when  the  improvements  have  been 
removed  from  the  premises  upon  which  they  were  originally 
put,  depends  upon  the  particular  statute, ^*j  and  as  we  have 
before  seen  there  is  a  division  of  courts  as  to  whether  the  lien 
exists  at  all.^^  This  question  most  usually  arises  where  the 
relation  of  landlord  and  tenant  exists  and  depends  largely 
upon  the  contract  or  the  lease. ^-  As  a  general  rule,  it  may  be 
said  that  in  the  absence  of  contract  the  building  cannot  be  re- 
moved, if  it  is  so  attached  to  the  real  estate  that  the  removal 
will  cause  permanent  injury  to  the  same.^^ 

5  Cady    V.    Fair    Plain    Literary  §  Kennedy  &  Shaw  Lumber  Co. 

Assn.,    135    Mich.    295,    97    N.    W.  v.    Dusenberry,    116    Cal.    124,    47 

680,   10    Det.   Leg.   N.   725.  Pac.    1008. 

c  Olson  V.   O'Malia,  75  111.  App.  9  Marchant   v.    Hayes,    120    Cal. 

387;     Booth    v.    Barron,    29    App.  137,    52    Pac.    154;    McMenomy    v. 

Div.    (N.   Y.)    66,   51   N.   Y.    Supp.  White,  115  Cal.  330,  47  Pac.  109. 

391;     Potvin    v.    Wickersham,    15  lo  First   National   Bank  of  Wa- 

Wash.    646,    47      Pac.      25.      Must  terloo  v.  Elmore,  52  Iowa,  541,  3 

have    valid    claim    before    he    can  N.    W.    547;    Sewall   v.   Duplessis, 

enforce  it.     Mauck  v.  Rosser,  126  2   Rob.    (La.)    66. 

Ga.  268,  55  S.  E.  32.  n  See   §186. 

7  Gnekow    v.    Confer,    (Cal.)    48  ^-  See  §  141  et  seq. 

Pac.   331.     See   §  287.  is   Conrad    v.    Starr,    50    Iowa 


200] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


490 


§  200.  Performance  of  required  conditions. — The  lien  claim- 
ant must  have  brought  himself  within  the  provision  of  the  stat- 
ute creating  his  lien  right,  and  then  he  must  have  complied 
with  the  conditions  bringing  the  right  to  a  perfected  lien, 
before  he  can  successfully  enforce  any  lien  claim. ^  If  the 
statute,^  or  the  contract  of  the  parties  requires  the  perform- 
ance of  some  precedent  condition^  before  the  lien  can  be  en- 
forced, such  condition  must  be  shown  to  have  been  complied 
with.*     As  a  usual  thing  no  demand  is  necessary  before  filing 


470;  Schaefer-Meyer  Brewing  Co. 
V.  Meyer,  19  Ky.  L.  R.  411,  40  S. 
W.  685;  Baker  v.  Stone,  (Tenn. 
Ch.  App.),  58  S.  W.  761. 

1  See  Persons  entitled  to  lien, 
§§  43-48.  See  Proceedings  to  per- 
fect lien.  Chapter  III.  See  Dec. 
&  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§249. 

2  Julius  V.  Callahan,  63  Minn. 
154,  65  N.  W.  267.  Where  a  me- 
chanic's lien  attaches  to  a  lease- 
hold, the  lease  to  which  has  been 
forfeited,  the  lienholder  must,  un- 
der Code  3443,  pay  to  the  lessor 
"all  arrears  of  rent,  or  other 
money,  interest,  and  costs  due 
under  the  lease,"  before  he  can 
acquire  the  lessee's  right.  Rothe 
V.  Bellingrath,  71  Ala.  55.  Pay- 
ing taxes,  etc.  Glos  v.  O'Brien 
Lumber  Co.,  183  111.  211,  55  N.  E. 
712.  Under  the  Michigan  law  re- 
quiring original  contractors  to 
furnish  the  owner  of  the  building 
a  statement  under  oath  of  the 
number  and  names  of  the  sub- 
contractors or  laborers  under 
them,  and  of  the  persons  furnish- 
ing materials,  with  the  amount 
due  each,  and  providing  that  un- 


til such  statement  is  furnished 
the  contractor  shall  have  no 
right  of  action  and  lien  on  ac- 
count of  the  contract,  such  state- 
ment is  a  prerequisite  to  the 
right  to  enforce  a  lien.  Wiltsie 
v.  Harvey,  114  Mich.  131,  72  N. 
W.  134. 

3  "To  satisfaction  of  owner." 
Boots  V.  Steinberg,  100  Mich.  134, 
58  N.  W.   657. 

4  Bates  V.  Trustees  of  Masonic 
Hall,  7  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  609,  27  N.  Y. 
Supp.  951. 

Completion  of  building. — Where 
the  contract  upon  which  proceed- 
ings to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien 
are  based,  and  which  is  set  out 
in  the  complaint,  shows  that  the 
amount  claimed  was  to  become 
payable  upon  the  completion  of 
the  building,  and  the  complaint 
avers  that  the  building  is  not 
completed,  judgment  for  the  pe- 
titioner must  be  reversed.  The 
difficulty  cannot  be  cured  either 
by  failure  to  answer  or  by  ver- 
dict; the  defect  not  being  in  the 
statement,  but  in  the  cause  of 
action.  Harmon  v.  Ashmead,  60 
Cal.    439. 


491  PERFORMANCE  OF  REQUIRED  CONDITIONS.  [§  200 

of  suit.^  Sometimes  the  contract  provides  that  a  certificate  of 
the  supervising-  architect,  or  other  agreed  person,  must  be 
presented  before  a  payment  is  due.  Where  this  is  the  case, 
the  lien  can  not  be  enforced  until  such  stipulations  have  been 
complied  with,  waived  or  executed  in  the  manner  provided 
by  law.^  Under  some  statutes  it  is  required  that  before  a 
payment  is  made  to  a  contractor,  he  should  give  a  list  or 
statement  to  the  owner,  of  all  persons  having  claims  against 
him,  and  that  if  he  fails  so  to  do  he  cannot  enforce  his  lien. 
Where  this  provision  is  in  force  the  contractor  can  not  en- 
force his  lien  without  giving  such  statement.'^  It  has  been 
held  that  such  a  stipulation  is  only  void  where  there  are  cir- 
cumstances sufficient  to  create  an  estoppel  on  the  part  of  the 
owner. s  Under  a  Missouri  statute,  it  is  necessary  to  notify 
the  owner  before  suit  is  brought,  and  under  such  statute 
unless  such  notice  is  shown,  an  action  to  foreclose  can  not  be 
maintained.^  So,  too,  there  being  no  privity  of  contract  be- 
tween an  owner  and  the  subcontractor,  before  such  subcon- 
tractor can  be  sustained  by  suit  to  enforce  his  lien  right  against 
the  owner,  he  must  show  that  he  has  performed  all  the  con- 
ditions required  by  the  statute. ^*^  And  even  if  the  statute 
Sfives  him  a  direct  lien  he  must  show  that  there  was  a  con- 
tract  between  the  owner  and  principal  contractor,^^  and  must 
establish  the  fact  that  he  has  a  debt  against  the  principal  con- 

5  Duckwall    V.    Jones,    156    Ind.  9  Heier  v.  Meisch,  33  Mo.  App. 

682,  58  N.  E.  1055.  35;    Schroeder  v.  Mueller,  33  Mo. 

0  See    §§49,     96.       Michaelis  v.  App.    28;    Cattaberry  v.  Knox,   17 

Wolf,    136    111.    68,   26    N.    E.    384;  App.    Div.    (N.    Y.)    372,   45    N.    Y. 

Wolf    V.    Michaelis,    27    111.    App.  Supp.    272. 

336;    Kirtland  v.  Moore,  40  N.  .1.  it>  Reeve  v.  Blmendorf,  38  N.  J. 

Eq.    106,    2    Atl.    269.  L.  125.    See  subcontractor's  liens, 

7  Bonheim  v.  Meany,  43  111.  App.  §  53. 

532;  Curran  v.  Smith,  37  111.  App.  UMaxon  v.  School  Dist.  No.  34, 

69;    Martin  v.  Warren,  109   Mich.  5  Wash.  142,  31  Pac.  462,  32  Pac. 

584,   67  N.  W.  897.  110. 

8|  Sterner    v.    Haas,    108    Mich. 
488,    66    N.    W.    348. 


§201]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  492 

tractor/2  for  materials  or  labor  furnished  within  the  purview 
of  the  principal  contract. 

§  201.  Compelling  and  restraining  foreclosure  proceedings. — 

As  a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that  a  party  who  requires  the 
enforcement  of  a  lien  to  protect  his  own  interests  may  file 
a  suit  in  equity  to  compel  the  enforcement  of  the  lien  and  the 
adjustment  of  his  own  rights. ^  But  he  must  show  that  he 
has  an  interest  to  be  afifected  injuriously  by  the  continuance 
of  the  lien,  before  he  can  force  foreclosure  proceedings  or  a 
sale  of  the  property.^  If  the  statute  makes  a  provision  for 
compulsory  foreclosure,  such  provision  must  be  followed.^  So 
too,  a  court  of  equity  will  not  issue  a  restraining  order  unless 
the  party  has  some  interest  to  be  injuriously  afifected  or  where 
there  is  no  existing  adequate  remedy  at  law.  In  conformity 
with  this  view,  it  is  held  that  the  holder  of  a  junior  lien 
cannot  restrain  foreclosure  by  an  older  lien  holder  on  the 
mere  ground  that  the  times  are  hard  and  a  better  sale  might 
be  had  in  the  future.'*  Where  a  party  having  an  interest 
is  not  made  a  party  to  the  proceedings  to  foreclose,  he  may 


12  Alabama.— May,      &c.,    Hard-  Smith    (N.   Y.)    571.     See    Dec.   & 

ware   Co.   v.   McConnell,   102   Ala.  Am.    Dig.    tit.    I\Iechanic's    Liens, 

577,   14   So.   768.  §251. 

(ioorgia, — Gumming    v.    Wright,  -  Butler  v.  Magie,  2  E.  D.  Smith 

72  Ga.  767.  (N.  Y.)   654;  Carpenter  v.  Jaques, 

Iowa.— Vreeland     v.    Ellsworth.  2  E.   D.  Smith    (N.  Y.)    571. 

71  Iowa  347,  32  N.  W.  374.  3  In    re    Poole,    14    N.    Y.    Supp. 

Minnesota. — ^Lewis  v.   Williams,  790;    Carroll   v.  Caughlin,   7   Abb. 

3    Minn.    151;    Emmet    v.    Rotary  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   72;   Borton  v.  Morris, 

Mill  Co.,  2  Minn.  286.  2    Miles     (Pa.)    109.      See    §§  202, 

Missouri. — Crane  Co.  v.  Hanley,  203. 

53    Mo.    App.      540;      IMurdock   v.  ■*  Winn    v.    Henderson,    63      Ga. 

Hillyer,  45  Mo.  App.  287.  365;    Wolf    v.    Glassport    Lumber 

^'ew  Jersey.— Reeve     v.  Elmen-  Co.,    59    Atl.    1105,    210    Pa.      370. 

dorf,  38  N.  J.  L.  125.  When   separate   suits   will   be   re- 

1  McGraw  v.  Storke,  44  111.  App.  strained.      Aimee    Realty    Co.    v. 

311;  Carpenter  v.  Jaques,  2  E.  D.  Haller,  128  Mo.  App.  66,  106  S.  W. 

588. 


493  OWNER    MAY    REQUIRE    SUIT.  [§  202 

have  the  action  restrained  until  he  can  come  into  court  and 
set  up  his  rights  and  have  them  protected.^  And  this  has  been 
held  true,  although  he  has  an  action  for  damages.*'  But  an 
injunction  will  not  be  granted  to  restrain  proceedings  w^here 
the  party  asking  the  same  has  had  an  opportunity  to  plead  his 
defense  and  has  neglected  to  do  so,'^  or  has  no  interest  to  be 
affected. s 

§  202.  Owner  may  require  lien  holder  to  commence  suit — 
Ohio  statute. — Section  3191  of  the  Ohio  statutes  provides  that 
the  owner  of  property  upon  which  a  lien  has  been  taken  to 
secure  any  mechanic,  laborer,  or  material  man  may  notify, 
in  writing,  the  owner  of  the  lien,  or  his  agent  or  attorney,  to 
commence  suit  thereon,  and  if  he  fails  to  commence  the  suit 
within  sixty  days  after  receiving  such  written  notice  the  lien 
shall  be  null  and  void,  but  nothing  herein  contained  shall  pre- 
vent the  claim  from  being  collected  as  other  claims  are  col- 
lected by  law.^  The  above  section  gives  to  the  owner  a 
method  by  which  he  can  clear  his  property  of  the  lien.  Were 
it  not  for  such  provision,  it  can  easily  be  seen  that  by  delay 
of  the  contractor  or  subcontractor,  an  owner  might  very  seri- 
ously be  inconvenienced,  in  having  his  property  incumbered 
with  a  lien  placed  upon  record.     The  effect  of  the  failure  to 

5  Raymond  v.  Ewing,  26  111.329;  cree  foreclosing  the  lien.     Martin 

Garretson   v.   Appleton    Mfg.    Co.,  v.   Berry,   159    Ind.    566,    64   N.  E. 

61  111.  App.  443;   Gates  v.  Ballou,  912.      To    prevent    multiplicity    of 

56  Iowa  741,  10  N.  W.  258.     Un-  suits.     Aimee  Realty  Co.  v.  Hall- 

der    Indiana    Statutes,    providing  er,    128    Mo.   App.    66,    106    S.    W. 

that   a   person  having  a  mechan-  588. 

ic's    lien   may   enforce    it   by   suit  ^  Flammond    v.    Martin,     (Tex.) 

within   a  year,    and    if   it  be   not  40  S.  W.  347. 

enforced     within     that     time     it  ^  Patch    v.    Collins,    158      Mass. 

shall    be    null    and    void,    mortga-  468,  33  N.  E.  567. 

gees,   who  are   necessary  parties,  8  Bond  v.  Carroll,   71  Wis.   347, 

not  having  been  made  parties   to  37  N.  W.  91. 

the    action    to    enforce    the    lien,  i  97    Ohio    Laws    500.       Section 

may,  the  year  for  suit  having  ex-  under     previous     Ohio     law  was 

pired,    enjoin   sale   under   the   de-  numbered  3197. 


§  202]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  494 

commence  a  suit  on  the  lien  is  to  release  the  property  from 
the  lien.  If  the  claimant  had  any  rights  against  any  one 
personally,  these  rights  would  be  reserved.  The  statute  should 
be  strictly  followed,  and  the  following  might  be  observed  in 
giving  the  notice:  The  notice  must  be  served  personally  on 
the  lienor,  his  agent  or  attorney  and  should  be  made  with  such 
publicity,  or  in  such  manner,  as  to  be  readily  proved.  A  copy 
of  the  notice  so  served  and  a  memorandum  indorsed  of  time, 
place  and  manner  of  service,  is  more  convenient  and  the  best 
precaution  against  errors  of  memory  in  reference  thereto. 
The  notice  may  be  in  this  form: 

Springfield,  O., ,  19. .. 

A.  B ;  Dear  Sir: 

You  are  hereby  notified  to  commence  suit  on  the  lien  you 
claim  to  own  and  have  taken  upon  my  property  in  this  city, 

as  appears  of  record  in  Vol ,  page ,  of  mechanic's 

lien  records  of  Clark  County,  Ohio,  as  required  by  law,  within 
sixty  days.  (Signed.) 

MEMORANDA    ON    RETAINED    COPY. 

Delivered  a  copy  of  the  above  notice  to  A.  B.  (or  his  au- 
thorized agent)  personally,  on  the day  of ,  19. ., 

at  his  residence  on  172  E.  High  Street,  Springfield,  Ohio. 

(Signed  by  person  serving  notice.) 
Dated   ,  19... 

§  203.  Owner  may  require  lien  holder  to  commence  suit — 
Indiana  statute. — Section  8303  of  the  Indiana  statute  as 
amended  and  re-enacted  by  the  legislature  in  1909  is  as  fol- 
lows: The  owner  of  property  upon  which  a  mechanic's  lien 
has  been  taken  may  notify,  in  writing,  the  owner  or  holder  of 
the  lien  to  commence  suit  thereon,  and  if  he  fails  to  commence 
such  suit  within  ninety  days  after  receiving  such  notice,  the  lien 
shall  be  null  and  void;  but  nothing  herein  contained  shall  pre- 


495  JOINDER  OF  DIFFERENT   LIENS   IN   SAME  ACTION.         [§204 

vent  the  claim  from  being  collected  as  other  claims  are  col- 
lected by  law.2  A  form  of  notice  of  the  tenor  and  effect  of 
that  set  forth  in  the  preceding  section  will  satisfy  the  statutory 
requirements.  But  the  affidavit  of  the  person  who  served  the 
notice,  stating  that  fact,  and  sworn  to  before  an  officer  author- 
ized to  administer  oaths  should  be  attached.^ 

§  204.  Different  liens  joined  in  the  same  foreclosure  pro- 
ceeding.— It  is  a  general  rule  that  parties  cannot  be  joined  in 
the  same  proceeding,  unless  they  are  jointly  interested  and 
in  case  of  foreclosure  of  mechanics'  liens,  that  the  parties  are 
jointly  entitled  to  a  lien  on  the  same  premises.^  But  con- 
sidering the  desirability  of  avoiding  a  multiplicity  of  suits, 
courts  are  inclined  to  permit  everybody  to  come  in,  so  that 
the  rights  of  all  persons  may  be  determined  in  one  pro- 
ceeding. Of  course  to  entitle  them  to  come  in  all  must  be 
interested  in  the  enforcement  of  a  lien  which  comes  within 
the  statute.2     Some  statutes  require  that  all  parties  claiming 

2  Acts  1909  p.  298,  §  9.  Fixture,  &c.,  Co.,  131  Ala.  256,  30 

3  Burns  R.  S.  1908,  §  504.  So.    26. 

1  Bush  V.  Connelly,  33  111.  447.  California.  —  Barber    v.    Reyn- 

A     subcontractor     cannot       join  olds,   33   Cal.  494. 

items      for      work      done      under  Illinois. — Thielman   v.    Carr,    75 

a     contract     with     a    contractor,  III.    385. 

and       also       items       for       work  Minnesota. — Mensel     v.     Tubbs, 

done    under    a  contract   with   the  51  Minn.  364,  53  N.  W.  653,  1017, 

owner.     Robinson  v.  Davis,  8  Del.  17  L.  R.  A.  815. 

(Pa.)      237.       Mechanics     cannot  jVew  York — McDermott     v.  Mc- 

bring   a  joint   suit.       Oldfield     v.  Donald,  18  Jones  &  S.   (N.  Y.  Su- 

Earbour,    12    Pr.    R.     (Ont.)     554.  per  Ct.)    153. 

The   rule   against     splitting     de-  ^Vasliington. — Washington  Rock 

mands    does    not      apply.      Aimee  Plaster  Co.  v.  Johnson,  10  Wash. 

Realty  Co.  v.  Haller,  128  Mo.  App.  445,    39    Pac.    115.     The    lien   law 

66,    106    S.    W.    588.      See   Dec.   &  of    1889,    which    provides    that    a 

Am.    Dig.   tit.     Mechanics'   Liens,  second     action     shall      not       be 

§  252.  brought  where     one     is     already 

'■i  Alabama.    —   Alabama     State  pending    to    foreclose    mechanics' 

Fair,  &c.,  Assn.  v.  Alabama  Gas  liens  on  property  affected  by  sev- 
eral  lien  claims,  but  if  such  ac- 


§204] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF    LIEN. 


496 


liens  must  come  into  one  action  and  have  their  rights  settled.^ 
If  separate  suits  are  brought  where  the  lien  is  sought  to  be 
enforced  by  several  parties  on  the  same  property,  the  court 
as  a  general  rule  on  motion  will  consolidate  them.'*  However, 
this  rule  applies  only  to  land  held  by  one  person.  If  liens 
are  sought  on  property  owned  by  different  persons,  they  will 
not  be  consolidated  and  can  not  ordinarily  be  brought  in  one 
action.^  An  exception  to  this  will  be  found  in  a  case  where  one 
structure  extends  over  the  lands  of  several  persons  and  is  erected 
under  one  contract.*^  But  the  fact  that  materials  are  furnished 
to  different  contractors  will  not  prevent  the  subcontractor 
from  enforcing  all  his  rights  in  one  action.'  Where  the  court 
has  ordered  actions  to  be  consolidated  or  different  claims  have 
been  brought  in  by  way  of  interpleader,  the  action  is  there- 
after treated  as  a  single  action,  and  a  single  set  of  findings 
and  judgments  may  be  had,*  but  if  separate  findings  are 
made,  it  will  not  be  error.^  The  rights  of  all  parties  in  such 
case  should  be  heard  and  determined  before  an  order  of  sale 
is  made.^'^  Each  claim  should  be  tried  on  its  merits  and  should 
not  be  prejudiced  by  testimony  given  on  the  hearing  of  an- 


tion  is  brought  it  must  be  con- 
solidated with  the  first  action,  is 
a  mere  regulation  of  practice, 
and  does  not  make  the  second 
action  void.  Miller  v.  Condit,  52 
Minn.  455,  55  N.  W.  47. 

3  Miller  v.  Condit,  52  ;Minu.  455, 
55  N.  W.  47. 

4  Moran  v.  Murray  Hill  Bank, 
58  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  199,  9  N.  Y. 
Supp.  715;  Graff  v.  Rosenbergh, 
6  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  428;  Allis  v. 
r^Ieadow  Springs  Distilling  Co., 
67  Wis.  16,  29  N.  W.  543,  30  N. 
W.   300. 

5  John  V.  Algor,  65  N.  J.  L.  363, 
47  Atl.  571;  Butler  v.  Rivers,  4 
R.   I.   38. 


•3  Kinney  v.  Mathias,  81  Minn. 
64,  83  N.  W.  497;  Lienable  and 
non-lienable  items  cannot  be 
joined  in  an  action.  Baker  v. 
Fessenden,  71  Me.   292. 

"  Smith  v.  Newbaur,  144  Ind. 
95,  42  N.  E.  40,  1094,  33  L.  R.  A. 
685.  Contra.  Dugan  v.  Higgs, 
43  Mo.  App.  161. 

8  Willamette  Steam  Mills  Lum- 
bering, &c.,  Co.  v.  Los  Angeles 
College  Co.,  94  Cal.  229,  29  Pac. 
629. 

9  IMarble  Lime  Co.  v.  Lordsburg 
Hotel  Co.,  96  Cal.  332,  31  Pac. 
154. 

10  Power  V.  McCord,  36  111.  214. 


497  DIFFERENT   DEFENSES.  [§205 

other.ii  If  it  is  found  necessary  to  sell,  an  order  of  sale  may 
be  made,  and  the  rights  of  a  subcontractor  may  be  determined, 
although  there  may  be  some  undetermined  matter  still  exist- 
ing between  the  owner  and  contractor.^2  Pre-existing  liens 
must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  determining  what  is  due 
upon  junior  liens.^^  The  fact  that  the  original  petitioner 
might  fail  on  his  claim, ^^  or  should  decide  to  withdraw  the 
same,^^  or  the  same  is  paid,i^  will  not  affect  the  right  of  an 
intervening  or  other  party  properly  in  the  action,  to  have 
the  same  pursued  to  a  final  determination. ^"^ 

§  205.  Defenses. — Where  the  ordinary  rules  of  pleading 
will  apply,  as  a  matter  of  course  a  defendant  may  set  up  as 
many  defenses  as  he  has.  It  being  a  statutory  right,  it  is 
incumbent  upon  the  claimant  to  show  that  all  conditions  of 
the  statute  granting  the  lien  have  been  at  least  substantially 
complied  with,  if  not,  the  action  will  fail.  Further  it  must 
be  shown  that  the  debt  has  not  been  paid.^  It  is  no  objection 
to  the  claim  of  a  subcontractor  that  the  principal  contractor 
had  no  power,  under  its  charter  to  contract,  as  a  corporation.^ 
Generally  the  fact  that  non-lienable  items  are  mingled  with 
lienable  ones,  if  they  are  separate  will  not  be  a  good  defense 

11  Harrington  v.  Miller,  4  i"  Angier  v.  Bay  State  Distill- 
Wash.   808,  31   Pac.   325.  ing  Co.,  178  Mass.  163;    Sandberg 

12  Wheeler  v.  Ralph,  4  Wash.  v.  Palm,  53  Minn.  252,  54  N. 
617,   30   Pac.  709.  W.  1109;   Abham  v.  Boyd,  5  Daly 

13  Cronk  v.  Whittaker,  1  E.  D.  (N.  Y.)  321;  Noar  v.  Gill,  111  Pa. 
Smith  (N.  Y.)   647.  488,  4  Atl.  552.     Claim  of  princi- 

14  Johnson  v.  Keeler,  46  Kan.  pal  barred.  Burns  v.  Phinney,  53 
304,  26  Pac.  728;   Elliott  v.  Ivers,  Minn.   431,   55  N.   W.   540. 

6  Nev.  287;   Morgan  v.  Taylor,  15  i  See    Payment,    §189.      Lehret- 

Daly    (N.  Y.)    304,  5   N.   Y.   Supp.  ter  v.  Koffman,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N. 

920.  Y.)   664,  1  Code  R.   (N.  S.)    (N.  Y.) 

15  Morgan  v.  Stevens,  6  Abb.  N.  284.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit. 
C.   (N.  Y.)   356.  Mechanics'    Liens,    §  253. 

16  Wilson  V.  Niagara  City  Land  ~  General  Fire-Extinguisher  Co. 
Co.,  79  Hun  (N.  Y.)  162,  29  N.  Y.  v.  Magee  Carpet  Works,  199  Pa. 
Supp.   517.  647,   49    Atl.    366. 

32 


§205] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


498 


against  the  lien.^  If  inseparable,  however,  the  entire  lien  will 
fail.  A  secret  contract  between  the  owner  and  the  person  in 
possession  who  contracts  for  the  building  that  it  was  not  to 
exceed  a  certain  amount,  will  be  no  defense  to  a  lien  covering 
an  excess.'*  If  a  grantee  in  a  trust-deed  mortgage  re- 
serves sufficient  to  meet  all  liens,  although  the  liens  may  be 
invalid,  yet  if  the  material  or  work  were  furnished,  he  can  not 
set  up  as  a  defense  that  the  lien  was  not  valid,  having  reserved 
sufficient  to  meet  the  same,  he  is  not  injuriously  affected  by 
such  allowance.^  The  fact  that  the  lien  claim  is  charged 
to  more  individuals  than  ought  to  be,  provided  the  same  is  not 
done  fraudulently,^  or  that  the  lien  claim  has  immaterial 
omissions,'^  or  that  a  building  in  a  city  has  not  been  erected 
according  to  the  city  ordinance,*  or  that  the  filing  of  a  lien 
destroys  the  credit  of  the  contractor,  so  that  he  cannot  pro- 
ceed with  his  work,^  or  that  the  plaintifif  has  shown  that  his 
claim  is  a  set-ofif  in  another  action  pending,^*^  or  that  there 
is  an  action  pending  on  the  debt,^^  or  that  more  notices  have 
been  filed  than  are  necessary,  ^^  or  that  an  insufficient  tender 
has  been  made,^^  or  that  one  abutting  street  owner  has  paid 


3  Eau  Claire-St.  Louis  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Wright,  81  Mo.  App.  535. 

4  Fischer  v.  Jordan,  169  N.  Y. 
615,   62  N.   E.   1095. 

5  Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  Dillon, 
13  Colo.  App.  196,  56  Pac.  989. 

6  Interstate  Building,  &c.,  Assn. 
of  Bloomington  v.  Ayers,  177  111. 
9,  52  N.  E.  342.  The  defendants 
therefore  have  a  right  to  show,  if 
they  can,  that  the  plaintiff  was 
engaged  in  the  conspiracy  to  de- 
fraud them  by  the  enforcement  of 
its  lien.  Bohn  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Keen- 
an,   15    S.   D.   377,   89   N.   W.   1009. 

7  West  Virginia  Bldg.  Co.  v. 
Saucer,  45  W.  Va.  483,  31  S.  E. 
965. 


8  Anderson  v,  Carlson,  99  111. 
App.  514. 

9  Mull  V.  Jones,  18  N.  Y.  Supp. 
359. 

10  Cremin  v.  Byrnes,  4  E.  D. 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  756;  Ohlinger  v. 
Phillips,  2  Woodw.  Dec.   (Pa.)   53. 

11  Culver  V.  Elwell,  73  111.  536; 
Sexton  V.  Weaver,  141  Mass.  273, 
6  N.  E.  367;  Gridley  v.  Rowland, 
1  E.  D.  Smith   (N.  Y.)   670. 

12  Clarke  v.  Heylman,  80  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  572,  80  N.  Y.  Supp. 
794. 

13  Duckwall  V.  Jones,  156  Ind. 
682,  58  N.  E.  1055. 


499 


CONTRACTOR  TO  DEFEND. 


[§206 


more  than  he  is  properly  charged  with/^  are  not  good  de- 
fenses to  the  lien.  So  the  fact  that  the  building  contract 
stipulates  that  sufificient  may  be  withheld  to  meet  claims/^ 
will  not  be  a  good  defense.  So  the  fact  that  the  owner 
notified  the  material  man  that  the  building  would  not  be  liable 
for  a  lien  will  not  prevent  the  subcontractor  from  recover- 
ing on  his  lien,  there  being  no  defense  that  he  exhausted  the 
entire  amount  due  to  the  contractor.^^  That  certificates  of 
money  due  have  been  assigned  will  be  no  defense. ^'^ 

§  206.  Contractor  to  defend  action — Ohio  statute. — Section 
3184e  of  the  Ohio  statute  provides  that  in  all  cases  where  a 
lien  shall  be  filed,  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  by  any 
person  other  than  a  contractor,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
contractor  to  defend  any  action  brought  thereupon  at  his  own 
expense;  and  during  the  pendency  of  such  action  the  owner 
may  withhold  from  the  contractor  the  amount  of  money  for 
which  such  lien  shall  be  filed ;  and  in  case  of  judgment  against 
the  owner  or  his  property,  upon  the  lien,  he  shall  be  entitled  to 
deduct  from  any  amount  due  by  him  to  the  contractor  the 
amount  of  such  judgment  and  costs,  and  if  he  shall  have  settled 
with  the  contractor  in  full,  shall  be  entitled  to  recover  back 
from  the  contractor  any  amount  so  paid  by  the  owner  for 
which  the  contractor  was  originally  the  party  liable.  ^^ 


14  Young  V.  Borzone,  26  "Wash. 
4,   66   Pac.   135. 

15  Perry  v.  Levenson,  178  N.  Y. 
559,   70  N.  E.   1104. 

16  Seward  v.  Mathers,  8  Kulp, 
(Pa.)  330;  Hill  v.  La  Crosse  & 
M.  R.  Co.,  11  Wis.  204.  It  is  no 
defense  to  the  foreclosure  of  a 
material  man's  lien  that  other 
material  men  may  claim  liens 
which  if  added  to  that  claimed  in 


the  foreclosure  suit  and  the  pay- 
ments properly  made  to  the  con- 
tractor would  exceed  the  contract 
price.  Tuck  v.  Moss  Mfg.  Co., 
127   Ga.   729,   56   S.  E.   1001. 

17  Iowa  Brick  Co.  v.  City  of 
Des  Moines,  111  Iowa  272,  82  N. 
W.  922.  When  owner  not  es- 
topped. Barbee  v.  Morris,  221  111. 
382,    77   N.   E.    589. 

18  Act  April  15,  1889;  86  Ohio 
Laws  373,  374. 


§207] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


500 


§  207.  Defenses — Want  of  title. — In  an  action  to  enforce 
a  subcontractor's  lien,  the  owner  may  set  up  as  many  de- 
fenses as  he  has  against  the  principal  contractor. ^  If  the 
contractor  does  not  pay  the  subcontractor  because  the  owner 
does  not  pay  him,  it  is  no  defense  that  the  principal  contract 
provided  that  there  were  to  be  no  liens.^  It  is  not  a  defense 
that  the  property  is  in  the  hands  of  a  receiver.  In  such  case, 
however,  the  remedy  must  be  worked  out  through  that  offi- 
cial.^  Neither  is  it  a  defense  that  the  elements  prevented  a 
compliance  with  the  contract.^  It  cannot  be  urged  as  a  de- 
fense to  the  lien  that  it  was  opposed  to  public  policy  if  the 
part  of  the  contract  open  to  this  defense  was  not  performed. ^ 
However,  if  the  entire  contract  is  void  as  against  public 
policy  no  lien  can  be  enforced.  As  between  an  owner  and  a 
lessee  the  fact  that  part  of  the  material  was  used  on 
the  part  sublet  to  another  person  will  be  no  defense  to  the 
lien,  where  the  lessee  has  power  to  make  the  improvement.^ 
As  a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  not  a  defense  that 


1  Smith  V.  Wilcox,  44  Ore.  323, 
74  Pac.  708;  Seeman  v.  Biemann, 
108   Wis.   365,   84   N.   W.   490. 

2  Weber  v.  Hearn,  49  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  213,  63  N.  Y.  S.  41;  Spring- 
er Land  Assn.  v.  Ford,  168  U.  S. 
513,  42  L.  ed.  562,  18  Sup.  Ct. 
170. 

3  Richardson  v.  Hickman,  32 
Aril.  406. 

4  "This  failure  to  perform  they 
attempted  to  excuse  by  testimony 
that  the  shingles  were  ordered  in 
the  West,  and  that  they  were  dis- 
appointd  by  reason  of  storms.  It 
was  not  provided,  however,  that 
they  might  set  off  their  disap- 
pointment against  the  disappoint- 
ment of  their  customer,  whom 
their  failure  to  perform  what 
they  had  undertaken  without  re- 


serve caused  severe  loss,  direct 
and  consequential."  Woolf  v. 
Schaefer,  41  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.) 
640,  85  N.  Y.  Supp.  205.  See  loss 
of  lien,  §    186. 

5  An  agreement  between  mater- 
ial men  and  the  contractor  that, 
if  the  latter  would  take  no  de- 
fense to  the  sci.  fa.,  the  former 
would  look  to  the  building  alone, 
and  discharge  him  of  personal  li- 
ability, is  contrary  to  the  policy 
of  the  law  and  void,  and  hence 
is  no  defense  to  an  action  be- 
tween the  contractor  and  mater- 
ial man.  Young  v.  Burtman,  1 
Phila.  (Pa.)  203,  8  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.) 
106. 

6  Montpelier  Light  &  Water  Co. 
v.  Stephenson,  22  Ind.  App.  175, 
53  N.  E.  444. 


501  DEFENSE WAIVER  AND  ESTOPPEL.  [§  208 

the  defendant  had  no  title,  since  the  claim  can  be  enforced 
only  on  the  title  he  hasJ  It  follows  that  it  is  not  a  defense 
that  someone  else  holds  a  paramount  title. ^ 

§  208.  Defenses — Waiver  and  estoppel. — A  person  who 
fraudulently  conveys  title  to  another,  can  not  plead  such 
want  of  title  to  defeat  a  lien  against  a  grantee  whom 
he  permitted  to  be  held  out  as  the  apparent  owner.^ 
And  a  person  may  generally  be  estopped  by  his  con- 
duct from  raising  a  defense  that  he  otherwise  had,  but  he 
should  not  be  held  to  waive  a  formality  that  is  necessary  to 
perfect  a  mechanic's  lien  against  him,  unless  it  clearly  appears 
from  the  evidence  that  he  actually  intended  to  waive  it,  or  his 
conduct  is  such  as  clearly  estops  him  from  asserting  the  con- 
trary.^^^  Thus,  where  an  owner  induced  a  material  man  to  fur- 
nish materials  by  making  him  believe  that  there  were  funds 
in  his  hands  due  the  principal  contractor  that  could  be  held 
at  the  time  the  inducement  was  made,  it  was  held  that  the 
owner  could  not  set  up  a  defense  against  the  same,  where  the 
time  for  perfecting  the  lien  had  passed. ^^  Merely  saying  how- 
ever that  he  would  accept  an  order  of  the  contractor,  does 
not  mean  that  the  owner  has  sufBcient  funds  or  that  he  will 

7  Ford  V.  Wilson,  85  Ga.  109,  App.  370.  In  foreclosure  of  a 
11  S.  E.  559;  Porter  v.  Wilder,  62  mechanic's  lien,  a  recital  in  the 
Ga.  520;  Ainsworth  v.  Atkinson,  lien  that  the  lien  contract 
14  Ind.  538;  Lane  v.  Snow,  66  was  executed  prior  to  the  de- 
Iowa  544,  24  N.  W.  35.  livery     of     the     material,     being 

8  Cook  V.  Goodyear,  79  Wis.  606,  set  up  to  stop  defendants 
48   N.  W.   860.  from  asserting  homestead   rights, 

9  West  V.  Badger  Lumber  Co.,  it  was  competent  for  them  to 
56  Kan.  287,  43  Pac.  239.  The  fact  show  that  they  did  not  know  that 
that  he  attempted  to  subject  the  it  contained  such  recital.  Kribs 
interest  of  another  will  not  estop  v.  Craig,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  60  S. 
him  from  asserting  his  rights.  J.  W.  62.  Cannot  falsify  former 
C.  Vreeland  Bldg.  Co.  v.  Knicker-  statements.  Hubbard  v.  Lee,  6 
booker    Sugar    Refining    Co.,     (N.  Cal.  App.  602,  92  Pac.   744. 

J.   L.)    68   Atl.   215.  iiMcConnell  v.  Worns,  102  Ala. 

10  Floyd   V.    Rathledge,    41      111.      587,   14   So.   849. 


§209] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


502 


pay  the  order.12  So  the  mere  fact  that  a  grantee  purchases 
property  "subject  to  all  liens"  does  not  estop  him  from  de- 
fending against  liens/^  unless  the  claim  was  then  pending  in 
court  or  had  been  reduced  to  judgment.^'*  All  persons  prop- 
erly made  parties  to  a  suit  relating  to  the  subject  matter  of 
the  lien,  are  estopped  from  afterwards  setting  up  their  claims. 
They  must  set  them  up  in  the  action  to  which  they  are  made 
parties. 1=^ 

§  209.  Defense  of  set-off  and  counterclaim — Owing  to  the 
wide  difference  in  the  statutes  and  procedure  of  the  various 
states,^  it  is  almost  futile  to  attempt  to  set  down  a  general 
rule  as  to  the  right  and  method  of  setting  up  the  defense  of 


12  Pike  V.  Irvin,  3  N.  Y.  Super 
Ct.  14. 

13  Jones  V.  Manning,  6  N.  Y. 
Supp.  338,  25  N.  Y.  St.  771. 

14  Hendrickson  v.  Norcross,  19 
N.   J.  Eq.   417. 

15  Julien  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Bur- 
ley,  11  Iowa  520;  Hannah  &  Law 
Mercantile  Co.  v.  Mosser,  105 
Mich.  18,  62  N.  W.  1120;  James 
V.  Davidson,  81  Wis.  321,  51  N. 
W.  565. 

Homestead  right. — A  note  re- 
cited that  it  was  given  "in  pay- 
ment for  work  and  material  used 
and  to  be  used  on  my  homestead 
in  Live  Oak  Grove,"  and  was  de- 
clared to  be  a  mechanic's  lien  on 
the  land  and  improvements.  The 
note  was  in  fact  given  to  raise 
money  to  improve  the  land,  which 
was  unimproved.  The  recital  did 
not  make  the  land  a  homestead, 
thus  rendering  void  an  aliena- 
tion without  the  wife's  consent, 
and  the  maker  was  estopped  to 
deny,  as  against  an  innocent 
purchaser  for  value,  that  it  rep- 


resented a  valid  mechanic's  lien. 
Bunton  v.  Palm,  (Tex.)  9  S.  W. 
182.  Where  lienors  were  not 
parties  to  a  prior  mechanic's 
lien  claim,  such  prior  claim 
was  no  defense  to  a  subse- 
quent claim  seeking  to  subject 
their  Interests  to  the  payment 
thereof.  J.  C.  Vreeland  Bldg.  Co. 
V.  Knickerbocker  Sugar  Refining 
Co.,  (N.  J.  L.)  68  Atl.  215. 

1  The  practice  is  governed  by 
the  act  which  provides  it  and  not 
by  the  Code.  It  is  a  statutory 
proceeding,  intended  to  enforce 
a  specific  statutory  right,  and  it 
is  appropriate  only  where  that 
right  is  in  question.  Its  charac- 
ter, nature  and  mode  of  proced- 
ure, therefore,  depend  upon  the 
act  which  affords  it.  The  extent 
of  the  remedy  afforded  by  the  act 
is  to  enforce  the  lien  upon  the 
property  covered.  Tenny  v.  An- 
derson Water,  Light  &  Power  Co., 
67  S.  Car.  11,  45  S.  E.  111.  See 
Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Liens,  §  254. 


503 


SET-OFF  AND  COUNTERCLAIM. 


[§209 


set-off  or  counterclaim,  but  in  most  of  the  states  it  is  recognized 
that  a  counterclaim  can  be  set  up  as  a  matter  of  defense.^ 
And  so  may  a  set-off  so  long  as  it  only  affects  the  original 
parties.^  However,  if  the  rights  of  third  parties  intervene, 
a  general  debt  cannot  be  set  off.^  If  at  the  time  the  contract 
for  the  building  was  entered  into  or  the  lien  right  attached, 


2  Indiana. — Bird  v.  Rector  of  St. 
John's  Episcopal  Church  of  Elk- 
hart, 154  Ind.  138,  56  N.  E.  129. 

Jfew  Jersey. — Norton  v.  Sink- 
horn,  61  N.  J.  Eq.  508,  50  Atl.  506. 

JTew  York. — Grogan  v.  Raphael, 
6  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  306;  Grogan  v. 
McMahon,  4  E.  D.  Smith,  (N.  Y.) 
754. 

Washington. — Powell  v.  Nolan, 
27  Wash.  318,  67  Pac.  712.  Is 
not  a  counterclaim.  McQuaide  v. 
Stewart,  48  Pa.  St.   198. 

Assignment  of  money  due. — 
When  the  contractor  assigns  all 
the  money  due  on  a  building  con- 
tract to  a  lumberman,  who  had 
furnished  material,  and  who  had 
primarily  brought  suit  without 
making  the  contractor  a  party, 
the  owner  can  plead  such  cause 
of  action  as  a  counter-claim. 
Tracy  v.  Kerr,  47  Kan.  656,  28 
Pac.  707.  Under  Code  Civ.  Proc. 
Mont.  691,  defining  a  counter- 
claim as  a  cause  of  action  aris- 
ing out  of  the  contract  or  trans- 
action set  forth  in  the  complaint 
as  the  foundation  of  plaintiff's 
claim,  or  connected  with  the  sub- 
ject of  the  action,  orders  on  the 
property  owner  to  laborers,  given 
by  the  contractor  for  work  done 
in  the  removal  of  buildings,  are 
properly  pleaded  as  counter- 
claims  in   an   action   by   the  con- 


tractor or  his  assignees  to  fore- 
close a  lien  for  the  contract  price 
of  such  removal.  Boucher  v. 
Powers,  29  Mont.  342,  74  Pac. 
942.  A  builder  sued  under  the 
mechanic's  lien  act  may  not  set 
off  claims  due  to  him  from  plain- 
tiff in  a  different  right.  By 
claims  that  are  "due  in  a  differ- 
ent right"  is  meant  debts  that 
have  accrued  in  transactions 
other  than  that  in  which  the 
plaintiff  has  filed  and  upon 
which  his  action  is  based.  Nay- 
lor  v.  Smith,  63  N.  J.  Law,  596, 
44  Atl.  649.  The  owner  may  set 
off  actual  damages  which  he  has 
sustained  by  the  contractor's 
failure  to  complete  the  building 
where  they  are  such  as  may  be 
said  to  have  been  in  contempla- 
tion of  the  parties  when  the  con- 
tract was  made.  Fossett  v.  Rock 
Island  Lumber,  &c.,  Co.,  76  Kan. 
428.     92  Pac.  833. 

3  Gable  v.  Parry,  13  Pa.  St. 
181;  Owens  v.  Ackerson,  1  E.  D. 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  691.  Meaning  of 
set-off.  Builders'  Supply  Depot 
V.  O'Connor,  15  Cal.  265,  88  Pac. 
982. 

4  Hoyt  V.  Miner,  7  Hill,  (N.  Y.) 
525;  Develin  v.  Mack,  2  Daly  (N. 
Y.)  94;  Bullock  v.  Horn,  44  Ohio 
St.  420,  7  N.  E.  737. 


§209] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


504 


the  contractor  was  indebted  to  the  owner  in  a  greater  sum  than 
the  amount  that  might  be  due  him  under  the  building  con- 
tract, this  may  be  pleaded  to  defeat  the  claim  of  the  material 
man.  This  would  be  considered  as  in  the  nature  of  a  pay- 
ment without  notice  of  the  claim  of  the  subcontractor. ^  This 
might  not  be  permitted  under  some  statutes.  However 
where  a  subcontractor  brings  an  action  to  foreclose  a  lien 
against  the  contractor,  his  sureties,  and  the  owner  of  the 
land,  the  contractor  is  the  primary  debtor  and  he  may  set 
up  a  counterclaim  though  it  is  only  in  his  favor  and  does  not 
affect  the  other  defendants.^  Of  course  here  as  elsewhere, 
the  owner  may  be  estopped  by  his  conduct  from  asserting 
claims  beneficially  attaching  and  if  he  should  accept  a  build- 
ing he  can  not  claim  damages  for  imperfect  work.'  Like- 
wise an  owner  can  not  claim  credits  for  payments  to  sub- 
contractors which  he  has  not  actually  made.^  But  if  there  are 
several  properties  and  the  owner  pays  on  one,  he  may  recoup 
or  set  up  such  payment  to  the  claim  asserted  on  the  others 
where  it  does  not  injuriously  aft'ect  other  parties.^ 

§  210.      Defenses — Damages   by    reason    of   default   of   con- 
tractor.— It  is  not  usually  necessary  to  show  on  the  part  of  a 


5  Stark  V.  Simmons,  54  Ohio  St. 
435,  43  N.  E.  999;  Brackney  v. 
Turrentine,    14    Ark.    416. 

6  Wescott  V.  Bridvvell,  40  Mo. 
146.  Cody  V.  Turn  Verein,  167  N. 
Y.  607,  60  N.  E.  1108,  also  48  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  279,  64  N.  Y.  Supp. 
219. 

7  Hannah,  &c..  Mercantile  Co. 
V.  Hartzell,  125  Mich.  177,  84  N. 
Y7.  52,  7  Det.  Leg.  N.  470.  Where, 
in  an  action  for  architect's  serv- 
ices, defendant  pleaded  and  at- 
tempted to  show  full  payment  at 
a  time  when  damage  by  reason  of 
improper  work  alleged  in  a  coun- 


ter claim  existed,  defendant  was 
thereby  estopped  to  urge  such 
damages  in  reduction  of  the  con- 
tract amount  so  alleged  to  have 
been  voluntarily  paid  in  full. 
Spalding  v.  Burke,  33  Wash.  679, 
74  Pac.  829.  Cannot  claim  rent  if 
he  waives  right  to  insist  on 
completion  of  building.  Kotcher 
V.  Perrin,  148  IMich.  690,  113  N.  W. 
284,  14  Det.  Leg.  N.  593. 

s  Wightman  v.  Brenner,  26  N.  J. 
Eq.  489. 

!'  I\Ioore  V.  Culbertson,  3  Walk 
(Pa.)   448. 


505 


DAMAGES DEFAULT  OF  CONTRACTOR. 


210 


material  man  that  all  the  material  went  into  the  building 
so  long  as  his  claim  comes  within  the  contract  price  between 
the  owner  and  contractor,  and  the  owner  cannot  counter- 
claim in  such  case  for  materials  not  actually  used  in  the 
building.^  So  long  as  only  the  rights  of  the  owner  and  princi- 
pal contractor  are  to  be  considered,  damages  resulting  from 
the  default  of  the  contractor  can  always  be  set  up  as  a  de- 
fense.2  In  all  cases  where  subcontractors  bring  an  action  or 
are  interested  in  a  suit,  they  are  bound  by  the  terms  and 
conditions  of  the  original  contract  and  will,  unless  their 
claims  have  in  some  manner  become  fixed  against  the  owner, 
be  subject  to  the  same  defenses  that  may  be  made  against  the 
principal  contractor.^  The  mere  fact  that  materials  were  re- 
ceived at  the  building  will  not  estop  the  owner  or  purchaser 
from  claiming  damages  if  they  were  defective.^  But  if  the 
owner  settles  in  full  with  a  contractor  and  reserves  sufficient 


1  Boucher  v.  Powers,  29  Mont. 
342,  74  Pac.  942;  Sierra  Nevada 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Whitmore,  24  Utah 
130,  66  Pac.  779;  Spears  v.  De 
Rant,  76  S.  Car.  19,  56  S.  E.  652. 

2  District  of  Columbia, — Burn  v. 
Whittlesey,  2  MacArthur,  (D.  C.) 
189. 

Missouri. — ]McAdow  v.  Ross,  53 
Mo.  199. 

Nebraska. — Hoagland  v.  Van 
Etten,  22  Neb.  681,  35  N.  W.  869. 

Jfew  Yorli. — Bulkly  v.  Healy, 
12  N.  Y.  Supp.  54,  34  N.  Y.  St. 
630;  Gourdier  v.  Thorp,  1  E.  D. 
Smith   (N.  Y.)   697. 

Pennsylvania. — Taylor  v.  Mur- 
phy, 148  Pa.  337,  23  Atl.  1134,  30 
W.  N.  Cas.  27,  33  Am.  St.  Rep. 
825;  Bayne  v.  Gaylord,  3  Watts, 
(Pa.)  301.  Liquidated  damages. 
Tenney  v.  Anderson  Water,  Light 
&  Power  Co.,  69  S.  Car.  430.  48  S. 


E.  457.  A  court  of  equity  is  con- 
trolled mainly  by  considerations 
of  right  and  justice  between  the 
parties,  and  it  follows  the  law, 
and  may,  in  a  proceeding  for  a 
mechanic's  lien,  allow  something 
for  what  is  deemed  insufficient 
work  while  decreeing  for  the 
amount  found  equitably  due. 
Heberlein  v.  Wendt,  99  III.  App. 
506. 

^  Surety  on  bond  of  contractor 
is  a  material  man,  the  owner  may 
set  up  damages  on  breach  of  con- 
ditions of  bond.  Hartman  v.  Ber- 
ry, 56  Mo.  487;  Deitz  v.  Leete, 
2S  Mo.  App.  540;  Reeve  v.  Elmen- 
dorf,  38  N.  J.  L.  125;  Winder  v. 
Caldwell,  14  How.  (U.  S.)  434, 
14  L.  ed.  487. 

4  Strawn  v.  Cogswell,  28  111. 
457. 


§211]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  506 

to  pay  subcontractors,  he  cannot  claim  any  defense  against 
subcontractors  for  the  failure  of  the  principal  to  properly  per- 
form the  contract.^  Contractors  can  only  claim  by  virtue 
of  the  statute  and  they  cannot  assert  a  beneficiary  right  to  a 
clause  in  a  contract  providing  for  a  penalty  for  the  failure 
to  properly  perform  the  contract.  This  matter  of  penalty 
will  be  construed  to  be  a  right  belonging  to  the  owner  only.^ 
Neither  can  a  subcontractor  or  material  man  claim  any  interest 
in  a  clause  in  a  contract  providing  for  damages  to  the  owner, 
if  improperl}^  performed.'^  Damages  are  not  a  kind  of  prop- 
erty that  can  be  asserted  or  covered  by  mechanics'  liens. ^ 

§  211.  Who  entitled  to  bring  action  to  foreclose. — The  per- 
son to  whom  the  debt  is  due  is  the  real  party  in  interest  and 
as  such  has  a  right  to  bring  an  action  to  foreclose  the  lien.  It 
it  generally  recognized  that  such  claims  are  assignable,^  and 
hence  a  person  to  whom  a  claim  is  properly  assigned  can  en- 
force the  same.2  An  assignee  for  the  benefit  of  creditors,  a 
receiver,  and  a  surety  on  a  contractor's  bond  have  been  held 
to  have  such  an  interest  as  would  entitle  them  to  foreclose  the 
lien  claim. ^  It  is  the  rule  that  the  real  person  in  interest  may 
bring  the  action  and  that  a  person  who  may  be  affected  by  an 
order  or  a  decision  in  the  action  may  defend  the  same.^  The 
courts  will  not  recognize  anybody  to  make  a  defense  who  can- 

5  Cook   V.    Rome    Brick   Co.,    98  ^  Curtis  v.   Broadwell,   66   Iowa 

Ala.   409,  12   So.  918.  662,  24  N.  W.  265;   German  Bank 

G  Toledo     Novelty     Works       v.  v.  Schloth,  59  Iowa  316,  13  N.  W. 

Bernheimer,  8  Minn.  118.  314;    Fullerton      Lumber     Co.    v. 

7  Schuyler  v.  Hayward,  67  N.  Y.  Gates,  89  Mo.  App.  201. 

253.  4  A  prior  mortgagee.    "Walker  v. 

8  See   §§  23,   66,  293.  Hauss-Hijo,   1   Cal.   183.   McAdam 

1  See  asignment  of  lien,  §  165.  v.  Bailey,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  297,  9 
See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Median-  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  30.  The  assignee 
ics'   Liens,   §  255.  of    a    claim    secured    by    build- 

2  Corporation  exceeding  its  er's  lien  is  entitled  to  be  sub- 
powers  cannot.  Dalles  Lumber,  stituted  as  plaintiff  in  fore- 
fee,  Co.  V.  Wasco  Woolen  Mfg.  closure  at  any  time  before  decree. 
Co.,  3  Ore.   527.  Fischer    v.    Hanna,    8    Colo.    App. 


507 


WHO  MAY  BRING  ACTION. 


[§211 


not  be  injuriously  affected  by  anything  the  court  may  legally 
do  in  the  action  as  brought.^  But  it  has  been  held  that  one 
who  is  either  the  owner  at  the  time  the  lien  attaches  or  at  the 
time  it  is  sought  to  enforce  the  same  will  have  sufficient  inter- 
est to  give  him  a  right  to  contest  the  same.^  As  a  subcon- 
tractor's claim  is  deducted  from  what  is  due  the  principal  con- 
tractor it  naturally  results  that  such  principal  contractor  may 
contest  the  lien  or  claim  of  a  subcontractor  and  lessen  or  de- 
feat the  same  if  he  canJ  But  the  contractor  may  only  set  up 
such  matters  as  will  affect  him  injuriously.  He  cannot  set  up 
a  claim  that  the  lien  did  not  properly  describe  the  premises. 
This  is  not  a  matter  which  injuriously  affects  him;  it  is  a  de- 
fense for  the  owner. ^  If  the  statute  requires  subcontractors 
to  contest  within  a  certain  time,  they  must  do  so  or  lose  their 
rig:ht.9 


471,  47  Pac.  303.  Owner  of  prop- 
erty. Thomas  v.  Turner,  16  Md. 
105;  Thaxter  v.  Williams,  31 
Mass.  49.  Adverse  lienholder.  Wilt- 
sie  V.  Harvey,  114  Mich.  131,  72 
N.  W.  134.  Grantee.  Toop  v. 
Smith,  87  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  241, 
84  N.  Y.  Supp.  326.  Lien  credit- 
ors. Knabb's  Appeal,  10  Pa.  St. 
186,  51  Am.  Dec.  472;  In  re  Wells' 
Estate,  2  Diel.  Co.  (Pa.)  172.  When 
purchaser  cannot.  Michigan  Sav- 
ings &  Loan  Assn.  v.  Attebery,  16 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  222,  42  S.  W.  569. 
Duty  of  party  in  interest  to  defend 
against  unjust  claims.  Vanden- 
berg  V.  P.  T.  Walton  Lumber  Co., 
(Okla.)  92  Pac.  149. 

5  Lake  Shore  &  M.  S.  R.  Co.  v. 
McMillan,  84  111.  208;  Gogel  v. 
Mickow,  11  Minn.  475. 

c  Bell  v.  Bosche,  41  Neb.  853,  60 
N.  W.  92;  Grove  v.  Lewis,  17  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  452,  26  Pittsb.  Leg.  J. 
(Pa.)   384. 


7  Flanagan  v.  O'Connell,  88  Mo. 
App.  1;  Clark  v.  Brown,  22  Mo. 
140. 

s  Wethered  v.  Garrett,  140  Pa. 
224,  21  Atl.  319,  27  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.) 
451. 

9  McConologue  v.  Larkins,  32 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  166,  66  N.  Y.  Supp. 
188.  Held,  "that  plaintiff  in  er- 
ror, as  assignee  of  one  Yaeger,  a 
contractor,  acquired  by  assign- 
ment and  has  only  such  rights  as 
Yaeger,  the  assignor,  had  at  the 
time  of  the  assignment.  That  by 
the  statute  on  mechanic's  liens, 
Yaegar  was  precluded  from  dis- 
puting the  amount  or  validity  of 
Wunker  &  Rehsteiner's  lien,  and 
claim  by  his  failure  to  proceed 
under  the  statute,  sections  3199 
and  3200,  to  contest  it,  hence  his 
assignee.  Fox,  is  precluded  here 
from  contesting  it."  Fox  v.  Wunk- 
er, 18  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  610. 


§212] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


508 


§  212.  Venue  of  action  or  jurisdiction  of  court. — The  action 
being  one  in  rem,  only  that  court  has  jurisdiction  which  has 
general  jurisdiction  over  the  place  or  locality  in  which  the 
structure  is  located  upon  which  it  is  sought  to  foreclose  the 
lien.^  And  no  action  can  be  brought  in  any  state  or  territory 
in  which  the  structure  is  not  located.  If  the  court  once  right- 
fully assumes  jurisdiction  it  will  retain  the  suit  until  finally 
terminated.2  If  property  has  been  seized  by  the  United  States 
courts  prior  to  commencement  of  the  action  the  lien  must  be 
worked  out  through  such  courts.^  The  statutes  generally  des- 
ignate the  particular  courts,  subject  to  the  above  general  rules, 
that  may  properly  exercise  jurisdiction  in  the  foreclosure  of 
liens.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  action  is  analogous 
to  the  foreclosure  of  a  mortgage,  and  such  suits  are  generally 
brought    in    courts    of    record    exercising    chancery    powers.^ 


1  Boyle  V.  Gould,  164  Mass.  144, 
41  N.  E.  114;  Guerrant  v.  Dawson, 
34  Miss.  149;  Mathews  v.  Heisler, 
58  Mo.  App.  145;  Rayson  v.  Hor- 
ton,  90  Wis.  367,  63  N.  W.  278. 
See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechan- 
ics'   Liens,    §  259. 

-  Rogers,  &c.,  Hardware  Co.  v. 
Cleveland  Bldg.  Co.,  132  Mo.  442, 
32  S.  W.  1.  If  proceedings  in 
bankruptcy  are  afterwards 
brought  this  might  remove  the  ac- 
tion to  the  United  States  Court. 

3  The  res  was  thereby  drawn 
into  the  exclusive  jurisdiction 
and  dominion  of  the  United 
States;  and,  for  the  purpose  of 
that  suit,  it  was  at  the  same  time, 
withdrawn  from  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  courts  of  New  Jersey.  Any 
proceeding  against  it,  involving 
the  control  and  disposition  of  it, 
in  the  latter,  while  in  that  condi- 
tion, was  as  if  it  were  a  proceed- 
ing   against   the    property   in    an- 


other state.  It  was  vain,  nuga- 
tory and  void,  and,  as  against  the 
proceedings  a  judgment  of  the 
district  court  of  the  United  States, 
of  those  claiming  under  them, 
was  without  effect.  Heidritter  v. 
Elizabeth  Oilcloth  Co.,  6  Fed.  138. 

4  Colorado. — Weiner  v.  Rumble, 
11  Colo.  607,  19  Pac.  760. 

Florida. — Futch  v.  Adams,  47 
Fla.    257,   36    So.    575. 

Missouri. — Hammond  v.  Bar- 
num,   13   Mo.    325. 

Maryland. — Miller  v.  Barroll,  14 
Md.    173. 

New  York. — Raven  v.  Smith,  148 
N.   Y.  415,  43   N.  E.   63. 

Rhode  Island.  —  Blackmar  v. 
Sharp,  23  R.  I.  412,  47  Atl.  598. 
Justice  of  the  peace  has  none. 
White  V.  Millbourne,  31  Ark.  486; 
Noss  V.  Cord,  1  Wis.  389.  Circuit 
court.  Stout  V.  Sower,  22  111.  App. 
65.  Common  pleas  has  none.  Gel- 
ston    V.    Thompson,    29    Md.    595. 


509 


VENUE  OF  ACTION. 


[§212 


Whether  or  not  proceedings  should  be  brought  in  an  equity 
court,  or  in  one  of  common  law  jurisdiction,  depends 
largely  upon  the  statute  and  the  procedure  in  vogue  in  the 
particular  states.  Some  courts  hold  that  the  proceeding  is 
purely  statutory  and  that  the  action  should  be  brought  on  the 
law  side  of  the  court.-'  Other  courts  hold  that  law  and  equity 
courts  have  concurrent  jurisdiction,*^  and  that  the  person 
bringing  the  action  may  choose  which  court  he  would  bring 
the  action  in.'''  But  the  proceedings  and  relief  demanded  are 
of  such  a  strong  equitable  character  that  the  prevailing  opin- 
ion is  that  the  action  should  be  brought  in  a  court  of  equity.^ 
And  even  where  it  is  held  that  the  action  should  be  brought  in 
a  common  law  court,  if  such  court  cannot  give  complete  relief, 
then  it  should  in  all  cases  be  brought  in  the  equity  court.^ 
Where  by  statute  the  amount  in  controversy  determines  the 
jurisdiction,  the  fact  that  the  amount  claimed  is  above  the  sum 
fixed  by  law,  will  give  the  court  jurisdiction,  even  if  upon  suit 


District  court  in  New  York  has 
none.  Egan  v.  Laemmle,  5  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  224,  25  N.  Y.  Supp.  330. 
Common  pleas  has  none.  Noyes 
V.  Burton,  29  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  631, 
17  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  449.  Justice 
of  the  peace  has  when  under 
$200.  'Finger  v.  Hunter,  130  N. 
Car.  529,  41  S.  E.  890.  District 
court.  Noyes  v.  Smith  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  77  S.  W.  649.  District 
court.  Jarrell  v.  Block  (Okla.), 
92  Pac.  167. 

5  Walker  v.  Daimwood,  80  Ala. 
245;   Cole  v.   Colby.   57  N.  H.   98. 

"  When  a  right  is  solely  and  ex- 
clusively of  legislative  creation, 
when  it  does  not  derive  existence 
from  the  common  law,  or  from 
the  principles  prevailing  in  courts 
of  equity,  and  jurisdiction  of  it  is 


limited  to  particular  tribunals 
and  specific,  peculiar  remedies 
are  provided  for  its  enforcement 
by  the  statute,  it  can  be  exercised 
and  pursued  only  before  the  trib- 
unals, and  in  the  mode  the  stat- 
ute provides.  Chandler  v.  Hanna, 
73  Ala.  390;Kizer  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Mosely,  56  Ark.  544,  20  S.  W.  409. 

^  Hobbs  V.  Spielberg,  3  Johns 
(N.  Mex.)   222,  5  Pac.  529. 

8  Andrews  v.  Washburn,  (Miss.) 
3  Sm.  &  M.  109;  Straus  v.  Finane, 
3  Johns  (New  Mex.)  260,  5  Pac. 
729;  Finane  v.  Las  Vegas  Hotel  & 
Improvements  Co.,  3  Johns  (New 
Mex.)    256,  5  Pac.  725. 

0  Wimberly  v.  Mayberry,  94 
Ala.  240,  10  So.  157,  14  L.  R.  A. 
305;  Chandler  v.  Hauna,  73  Ala. 
390;  Coleman  v.  Freeman,  3  Ga. 
137. 


§213] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


510 


it  is  found  that  a  less  sum  should  have  been  demanded.^''  So, 
too,  it  is  held  as  a  general  rule  that  if  the  court  properly  has 
jurisdiction  as  an  incident  to  its  power  it  may  declare  fraudu- 
lent a  transfer  intended  to  defeat  the  lien.^^  But  there  can  be 
no  jurisdiction  over  a  person  unless  there  is  either  actual  or 
constructive  service. ^^  And  to  have  jurisdiction  in  rem,  such 
services  by  attachment  or  otherwise  must  be  had  as  the  statute 
provides,  and  there  can  be  no  judgment  rendered  in  personam 
without  personal  service. ^^ 

§  213.  Limitation  of  action  to  enforce  lien. — As  a  general 
rule  the  mechanic's  lien  statutes  fix  the  time  within  which  an 
action  of  foreclosure  shall  be  brought,  and,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  if  the  action  is  not  brought  within  that  time  it  will 
fail.i  When  the  case  clearly  is  not  within  the  statutory  limit, 
considerations  of  equity  will  not  prevail  over  the  statute  and 


10  Haberzettle  v.  Bearing,  (Ter. 
Civ.  App.)  80  S.  W.  539.  Separate 
demands  cannot  be  aggregated  to 
equal  sum  necessary.  Miller  v. 
Carlisle,  127  Cal.  327,  59  Pac. 
785. 

11  The  court  has  the  same  po\¥- 
er  in  mechanic's  lien  cases  that 
the  other  courts  of  record  exer- 
cise. They  proceed  alike  under 
the  same  statute  to  attain  the 
same  end.  The  defendants  plead 
the  transfers  in  defense,  and,  like 
a  general  release  or  other  docu- 
ment, pleaded  in  bar  of  a  recov- 
ery, the  court  may  in  a  proper 
case,  and  even  in  a  common-law 
action,  adjudge  such  instruments 
to  be  void  so  as  to  destroy  their 
effect  as  a  defense.  The  action  is 
to  foreclose  the  lien,  and  declar- 
ing fraudulent  a  transfer  intend- 
ed to  defeat  the  lien  is  an  inci- 
dent to  the  jurisdiction  necessary 


to  make  it  effective.  Murray  v. 
Gerety,  11  N.  Y.  Supp.  205,  25  Abb. 
N.  Cas.    (N.  Y.)   161. 

12  Jepherson  v.  Green,  22  R.  T. 
276,  47  Atl.  599;  Northwest 
Bridge  Co.  v.  Tacoma  Shipbuild- 
ing Co.,  36  Wash.  333,  78  Pac.  996. 

13  Meyers  v.  Le  Poidevin,  9  Neb. 
535,  4  N.  W.  319. 

1  Colorado. — San  Juan  Hard- 
ware Co.  V.  Carrothers,  7  Colo. 
App.  413,  43  Pac.  1053. 

Delaware. — Peninsular  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Fehrenbach,  37  Atl.  38,  1 
Marv.   (Del.)  98. 

Georgia.— Dunning  v.  Stovall, 
30   Ga.   444. 

Illinois. — Dunphy  v.  Riddle,  86 
111.  22;  Van  Pelt  v.  Dunford,  58 
111.  145;  Green  &  Lombard  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Bain,  77  111.  App.  17; 
Boylan  v.  Cameron,  126  111.  App. 
432. 


511 


LIMITATION   OF  ACTION. 


[§213 


extend  the  time,^  nor  may  statutory  provisions  relating  to  the 
time  of  foreclosure  'be  waived,  unless  the  conduct  of  the  par- 
ties is  such  as  will  permit  of  no  other  conclusion.^  But  it  has 
been  held  that  the  time  limit  fixed  by  the  statute  within  which 
the  action  shall  be  brought  does  not  apply  where  the  money  is 
paid  into  court  to  discharge  the  lien.'*  Where  the  mechanic's 
lien  statute  fixes  no  time  for  bringing  the  action,  the  general 
statute  of  limitations  may  be  applied.^  The  limit  provided  by 
the  statute  relating  to  a  lien  applies  only  to  persons  who  are 
themselves  within  the  act.^     If  a  law  be  repealed  by  one  which 


Indiana.  —  School  Town  of 
Princeton  v.  Gebhart,  61  Ind. 
187. 

Maine. — Foss  v.  Desjardins,  98 
Me.    539,   57   Atl.    881. 

Massachusetts. — Gilson  v.  Em- 
ery, 77  Mass.  430. 

Michigan.— Hall  v.  Erkfitz,  125 
Mich.  332,  84  N.  W.  310,  7  Det. 
Leg.    N.    524. 

Jfebraska, — Calkins  v.  Miller, 
55  Neb.  601,  75  N.  W.  1108. 

Oregon.  —  Willamette  Falls 
Transportation  &  Milling  Co.  v. 
Perrin,  1  Ore.  182. 

Tennessee. — Furguson  v.  Ellis, 
25  Tenn.  268.  In  time.  Eisen- 
drath  Co.  v.  Gehhardt,  124  111. 
App.  325,  decree  affirmed,  222  111. 
113,  78  N.  E.  22;  Bloomington 
Hotel  Co.  V.  Garthwait,  227  111. 
613,  81  N.  E.  714,  modifying  judg- 
ment Garthwait  v.  Bloomington 
Hotel  Co.,  130  111.  App.  418.  Dur- 
ation of  lien,  see  §  131.  Failure 
to  claim  priority  over  mortgage, 
see  §  155.  Loss  of  lien  by  delay 
in  enforcement,  see  §  157.  Time 
to  file  claim  or  statement,  see 
S§  94-99.  Where  claim  is  against 
decedent's   estate,  see   §  153.     See 


Dec.   &  Am.    Dig.   tit.   Mechanics' 
Liens,   §  260. 

2  No  consideratlion  of  equity, 
no  suggestion  that  it  would  be 
better  for  all  parties  that  the 
suit  should  be  postponed,  no  parol 
agreement,  and  no  covenant,  how- 
ever formal,  short  of  a  mortgage, 
amounting  of  itself  to  a  new  lien, 
can  save  it.  Hilliard  v.  Allen, 
4   Cush.    (Mass.)    532. 

3  Eisendrath  Co.  v.  Gebhardt, 
222  III.  113,  78  N.  E.  22.  Where 
a  contract  for  a  mechan- 
ic's     lien        reads,      "I        hereby 

agree  that  you  shall  have  a 

lien  until  the  same  is  paid." 

and  provides  for  payment  at  a 
date  within  the  statutory  period 
of  limitations,  the  contract  can 
not  be  construed  as  a  waiver  of 
the  statute  of  limitations  as  to 
the  right  to  enforce  such  lien. 
Gates  V.  Ballon,  56  Iowa  741,  10 
N.   W.    258. 

■1  Perini  v.  Schmyg,  24  Misc. 
(N.   Y.)    761,   53   N.   Y.   Supp.   946. 

5  Dunning  v.  Stovall,  30  Ga. 
444. 

G  The  limitation  clause  of  th"^ 
Illinois  mechanic's     lien     statute 


§214] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


512 


is  very  much  similar  it  will  be  construed  in  connection  with 
the  earlier  act  and  a  provision  merely  enlarging  the  time  will 
apply  to  one  who  had  entered  upon  his  work  at  the  passage 
of  the  new  law."  In  determining  whether  the  action  is  barred 
the  usual  rule  is  to  exclude  either  the  first  day  or  the  last  day 
within  which  the  action  might  be  brought.'^  Some  courts 
apply  a  different  rule  and  count  both  days ;  generally,  how- 
ever, the  rule  is  applied  which  is  most  favorable  to  the  me- 
chanic.'-' 

§  214.  When  action  may  be  brought. — Of  course  the  action 
can  never  be  brought  until  the  debt  has  matured.  This  is  true 
even  though  it  may  be  filed  and  become  a  charge  on  the  prop- 
erty before  such  time.^  And  likewise,  the  contract  should  be 
essentially  complied  with.^  Where  the  entire  debt  is  not  due, 
as  where  it  matures  in  installments,  courts  generally  permit 
the  action  to  be  brought  when  one  installment  is  due,  taking 
care  of  future  installments  as  they  become  due.^  An  action 
brought  before  the  time  fixed  by  statute  for  the  bringing  of 
the  same  is  premature  and  will  on  motion  be  dismissed.'*  But 
this  will  not  prevent  its  being  refiled  when  the  proper  time 


has  no  application  as  between 
the  contractor  or  material  man 
and  the  owner.  Moore  v.  Parrish, 
50   111.   App.   233. 

"  Sedgwick  v.  Concord  Apart- 
ment House  Co.,  104  111.  App.  5; 
Bear  Lake,  &c.,  Irrigation  Co.  v. 
Garland,  164  U.  S.  1,  41  L.  ed. 
327,  17  Sup.  Ct.  7. 

8  Haden  v.  Buddensick,  49  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  241.  Computation  of 
period,    see    §  62. 

9  Phoenix  Planing  Mill  Co.  v. 
Harrison,  108  Mo.  App.  603,  84  S. 
W.  174.     See  §  233. 

1  Arkansas. — Hicks  v.  Branton, 
21   Ark.   186. 


Florida.— Pitt  v.  Acosta,  18  Fla. 
270. 

Maryland. — Thomas  v.  Turner, 
16  :\Id.  105. 

Ma'ssaclmsetts. — Weeks  v.  Wal- 
cott,  15  Gray    (Mass.)    54. 

>'^ew  York. — Preusser  v.  Flor- 
ence, 4  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  136. 
See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechan- 
ics' Liens,  §  260. 

2  Kinney  v.  Hudnut,  3  111.  472; 
Luter  V.  Cobb,  41  Tenn.  525. 

3  Ringle  v.  Wallis  Iron  Works, 
85  Hun  (N.  Y.)  279,  32  N.  Y. 
Supp.  1011;  laege  v.  Bossieux,  15 
Gratt   (Va.)    83,  76  Am.  Dec.  189. 

4  Knickerbocker  Ice  Co.  v.  Kirk- 
patrick,    51    111.    App.    60. 


513  WHEN  ACTION  TO  BE  BROUGHT.  [§214 

arrives.^  No  general  rule  can  be  given  for  the  particular  time 
at  which  an  action  may  be  brought,  and  from  which  date  it 
will  be  barred  if  it  is  not  brought.  Under  some  statutes  it  is 
held  that  it  is  at  the  time  the  materials  are  furnished.^  Should 
the  parties  go  to  trial  on  the  merits  of  the  lien,  and  the  defend- 
ant file  a  counter  claim  for  damages,  but  make  no  objection  5n 
the  ground  that  the  action  is  not  brought  within  the  time  al- 
lowed, he  will  be  estopped  from  thereafter  raising  the  ques- 
tion that  it  was  not  filed  within  the  time  limit.'^ 

§  215.  Remedy  by  action  under  the  Ohio  statute. — Section 
3206  of  Ohio  statutes  is  as  follows:  Any  person  holding  a 
mechanic's  lien  may,  in  addition  to  the  remedies  herein  pro- 
vided for,  proceed  by  petition,  as  in  other  cases  of  liens,  against 
the  owner  and  all  other  persons  interested,  either  as  lien- 
holders  or  otherwise,  in  any  such  boat,  vessel  or  other  water 
craft,  or  house,  mill,  manufactory,  or  other  building,  or  appur- 
tenance, mentioned  in  section  thirty-one  hundred  and  eighty- 
four,  and  the  lot  of  land  on  which  the  same  may  stand,  or  to 
which  it  may  be  removed,  and  obtain  such  judgment  therein 
for  the  rent  or  sale  thereof  as  justice  and  equity  may  require.^ 

1.    Kinds  of  Actions. 

The  above  section,  together  with  section  3200,^  provide'  a 
number  of  remedies  which  a  lien-holder  or  claimant  may  have. 
He  may  proceed  by  suit  on  his  account,  independent  of  the 
lien ;  or  he  may  proceed  on  his  lien  exclusively  in  a 
court  of  chancery,  or  he  may  unite  his  two  causes  of  action 
and  obtain  a  personal  judgment  and  order  of  sale,  and  then 

5  Millsap  V.  Ball,  30  Neb.  728,  i  49  Ohio  Laws,  p.  108,  §  1;  Act 
46  N.  W.   1125.  March  22,  1S81;   78  Ohio  Laws,  p. 

6  Close  V.  Hunt,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.)  78;  Rev.  Stat.  1880  (S.  &  C), 
254.     See    §  218.  §  837. 

7  Fulkerson  v.  Kilgore,  10  Okla.  2  See    §  291. 
655,    64    Pac.    5. 


33 


§  215]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN,  514 

proceed  to  foreclose  his  lien.'"'  The  action  is  commenced  by 
the  filing  of  a  petition.  This  needs  to  be  done  within  the 
period  limited  by  law,  and  must  show  performance  of  the  nec- 
essary statutory  conditions.  Where  the  suit  is  in  the  nature 
of  an  assertion  of  a  personal  claim  it  is  triable  by  a  jury ,4  but 
where  equitable  rights  are  to  be  worked  out,  chancery  courts 
will  have  jurisdiction.-^  A  cause  of  action  as  at  law  on  an  ac- 
count, may  be  joined  with  a  chancery  action  to  enforce  the 
lien.  On  the  law  issues  there  must  be  a  trial  by  jury.^  The 
action  must  be  brought  in  the  county  where  the  subject  of  the 
action  is  situated."  And  must  be  brought  within  the  time 
limit. ^  All  persons  having  claims  in  the  fund  or  on  the  prop- 
erty are  proper  parties. ^  But  a  person  having  no  interest  in 
the  result  of  the  litigation  is  not  a  proper  party.  It  seems 
though  that  a  head  contractor  should  be  made  a  party,  al- 
though he  has  assigned  his  interest.^ '^  As  a  matter  of  course 
if  the  property  has  gone  into  the  hands  of  a  receiver  the  re- 
ceiver should  be  made  a  party. ^^ 

2.     Averments  of  Petition. 

The  petition  must  aver  that  the  work  was  done  under  con- 
tract,^- and  that  it  is  brought  within  the  time  limit,^^  and  where 
a  subcontractor  brings  a  suit  it  must  show  that  the  materials 

3  Chapman  v.  Bolton  Steel  Co.,  ^  Ashley  v.  Conant  Bros.  Furni- 

4  Ohio  C.  C.  242,  2  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  tiire  Co.,  5  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  486,  12 

523.  Ohio  C.  C.  537.     See  §  227. 

■i  Ziegler  v.  Leibolt,  1  Ohio  Dec.  i"  Kloeppinger     v.    Grasser,    25 

(Re.)   404,  8  West.  L.  J.  J.  569.  Ohio  C.  C.  90. 

»  Dakin    v.    Lecklider,    10    Ohio  n  Andrews,    &c.,    Iron      Co.    v. 

Cir.  Dec.   308,   19  Ohio  C.   C.  254.  Smead   Heating,  &c.,   Co.,   5   Ohio 

6  Olippenger     v.    Ross,  2      Ohio  Dec.  292,  7  Ohio  N.  P.  439. 

Dec.    (Re.)    562,    3    West.'  L.    ^lo.  i2Spinning     v.     Blackburn,     13 

645.  Ohio      St.      131;      United      States 

"  Chapman  v.  Bolton  Steel   Co.,  Mortg.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wood,  10  Ohio 

2  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  523,  4  Ohio  C.  C.  Cir.   Dec.   324,  19   Ohio  C.  C.  358. 

242.     See  §  212.  See  §  236. 

8  Scioto  Val.   R.   Co.   v.   Cronin,  I'^Kunkle  v.  Reeser,  5  Ohio  Dec. 

38   Ohio   St.    122.  422,  5  Ohio  N.  P.  401.  See  §  214. 


515  REMEDY   UNDER  OHIO  STATUTE.  [§  215 

were  furnished  for  a  particular  building.^'*  The  subcontractor 
must  aver  that  his  claim  was  filed,  and  not  disputed,  and  that 
all  the  conditions  precedent  were  performed, ^^  and  that  the 
materials  or  work  were  done  under  contract  with  the  owner. ^^ 
All  the  particulars  required  in  the  statute  as  conditions  to  the 
existence  of  the  lien  must  be  set  out.^'^  It  is  not  necessary 
that  a  principal  contractor  in  his  petition  should  show  the 
amount  due,  under  the  original  contract  at  the  time  his  claim 
was  payable,  since  the  owner  has  knowledge  of  this  fact.^^ 
Irrelevant  matter  need  not  be  stated. ^^ 

3.     Defenses. 

Whatever  defenses  the  parties  may  have  may  be  set  up  in  the 
answer.  The  statute  specifically  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  prin- 
cipal contractor  to  defend  actions  brought  by  his  subcontract- 
ors against  owners,  and  if  the  principal  contractor  does  not  de- 
fend and  the  owner  defends  he  may  deduct  the  expense  of  such 
suit  from  the  claim  of  the  contractor,  and  if  he  has  paid  the 
contractor  in  full,  he  may  recover  the  same  by  suit  against 
him.2o  Matters  not  connected  with  the  transaction  can  not  be 
urged  as  a  defense.-^  The  owner  can  not  relieve  himself  of 
payment  of  interest  unless  he  pays  the  money  into  court.22 

4.     Trial. 

Where  the  action  is  for  money  had  and  received  it  must  be 
tried  to  a  jury.23     And  even  where  legal  and  equitable  actions 

i4Teachout  v.  Cleveland,  4  Ohio  lOToledo    Lumber    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

Dec.  (Re.)  376,  2  Clev.  L.  57.  Gross,  1  Ohio  Dec.  83,  3  Ohio  N.  P. 

iswatkins  v.  Shaw,  4  Ohio  Cir.  322. 

Dec.  660,  7  Ohio  C.  C.  415.  20See  §  206. 

icchapman  v.  Bolton  Steel  Co.,  siBullock  v.  Horn,  44   Ohio  St. 

2  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  523,  4  Ohio  C.  C.  420,  7  N.  E.  737. 

242.  22  Hayden    Saddlery    Hardware 

i7Chapman  v.  Rannells,  2  Ohio  Co.  v.  Slade,  2  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  38, 

Dec.    (Re.)    245,    2    West.    L.    Mo.  3  Ohio  C.  C.  67. 

142.  23Dunn  v.  Kanmacher,  26  Ohio 

isWatkins  v.  Shaw,  4  Ohio  Cir.  St.  497.     See  §    265. 
Dec.  660,  7  Ohio  C.  C.  415. 


§215]  ENFORCEMENT  OF   LIEN.  516 

are  joined  the  legal  action  must  be  tried  by  a  jury.^^  So,  where 
the  action  is  brought  upon  an  account  and  the  issue  is  taken 
upon  the  amount  due  and  as  to  whether  the  lien  was  filed  in 
time,  these  matters  must  be  tried  to  a  jury.^^  Where  a  ma- 
terial man  furnishes  material  suitable  for  the  work  to  a  person 
who  is  erecting  the  building,  it  will  be  presumed  that  the  ma- 
terial was  furnished  for  that  building.^^  It  will  also  be  pre- 
sumed that  material  men  and  laborers  have  knowledge  ot  the 
original  contract.^'^  The  mere  fact  that  the  claim  contains  cer- 
tain statements  is  not  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  correctness 
of  those  statements.-''^  The  giving  of  the  note  is  not  a  pre- 
sumption of  payment.-''  A  party  in  possession,  for  whom  work 
was  done,  cannot  set  up  as  a  defense  that  he  had  no  interest.^'' 

5.     Form  of  Petition  by  Contractor  Against  Ozvner  for  Personal 
Judgment  and  Foreclosure. 

Court  of  Common  Pleas, County,  Ohio. 

A.  B.,  Plaintifif, 

Against  Petition. 

C.  D.,  E.  F.  and  G.  H.,  Defendants. 

1.     For  his  first  cause  of  action,  plaintiff  says: 

There  is  due  to  him  from  the  defendant,  C.  D.,  on  the  ac- 
count hereto  attached,  marked  exihibit  A.,  and  made  a  part 

24Clippenger    v.    Ross,    2    Ohio  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  176,  11  Ohio  C.  C. 

Dec.    (Re.)    562,    3    West.    L.    Mo.  339. 

645.  28Bender  v.  Stettiniiis,  10  Ohio 

25Ashley  v.  Conant  Bros.  Furni-  Dec.   (Re.)   186,  19  Wkly.  L.  Bull. 

ture  Co.,  5  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  486,  12  163.     See  §  256. 

Ohio  C.  C.  537.  29Rousculp  v.  Ohio  Southern  R. 

26Kunlile  V.  Reeser,  5  Ohio  Dec.  Co.,   10    Ohio    Cir.   Dec.     621,     19 

422,  5  Ohio  N.  P.  401.     See  §  256.  Ohio  C.  C.  436.     See  §  26l'. 

2TGimbert    v.    Madden,    3    Ohio  sowilliams    v.    Webb,    13    Ohio 

Dec.    497,    2    Ohio   N.    P.    346,    re-  Dec.    (Re.)    264,   2   Disney    (Ohio) 

versed,    Gimbert    v.    Heinsath,     5  430. 


517  FORM    OF    PETITION    OHIO    STATUTE.  [§  215 

hereof  the  sum  of dollars  and  cents,  which 

he    claims    with    interest    from    the   day   of   , 

A.  D.  19—. 

2.     For  his  second  cause  of  action,  plaintiff  further  says: 

That  the  items  charged  in  the  said  account  against  said 
defendant,  C.  D.,  described  in  his  first  cause  of  action,  the 
averments  in  regard  to  which  are  hereby  referred  to,  and 
made  a  part  thereof,  were  as  stated  therein,  for  work  and 
materials,  etc.,  furnished  in  and  about  the  construction  (alter- 
ation or  repair,  etc.)  of  a  house   (mill,  etc.)  at  the  request  of 

the  said  C.  D.,  between  the day  of ,  A.  D.  19 — , 

when  the  same  commenced,  and  the  day  of  , 

A.  D.  19 — ,  when  the  same  ended,  on  a  certain  lot  of  land 
of  the  said  C.  D.  bounded  and  described  as  follows,  to-wit. : 
(Here  follow  with  description.) 

Plaintiff  says  that  within  four  months  from  the  completion 

of  said  work,  etc.,  on  the  day  of ,  A.  D.  19 — , 

he  duly  filed  with  the  recorder  of  said  County  of  , 

State  of  Ohio,  for  record,  an  affidavit  containing  an  itemized 
statement  of  the  amount  and  value  of  such  labor,  etc.,  with 
all  credits  and  set-offs  thereon,  with  a  statement  of  the 
amounts  and  time  when  the  same  should  have  been  paid, 
and  a  description  of  said  lot  of  land  on  which  said  house, 
etc.,  stands,  in  pursuance  of  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and 
provided,  and   which  was  recorded   in   mechanic's  lien  book, 

vol.  ,  page  ,  of  the  records  of  said  county,  whereby 

his  said  claim  became  and  is  a  valid  and  subsisting  lien  on 

said   building  and   lot   of   land   from   the   said   day  of 

,  A.   D.    19 — ,  when  said  labor  etc.,  was  commenced, 

for  the  full  amount  thereof,  no  part  of  which  has  been  paid 
or  satisfied. 

Plaintiff  further  says  that  E.  F.  and  G.  H.  each  claim  to 
hold  some  interest  in  said  property,  as  lien-holders  or  other- 
wise, which  plaintiff  prays  they  may  be  required  to  set  up 


§215]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  518 

therein.    Wherefore,  plaintiff  prays  judgment  in  his  said  account 

for  $ ,  with   interest  as   aforesaid,   that   the   same   may 

be  declared  to  be  a  valid  and  subsisting  lien  on  said  premises 
by  virtue  of  said  proceedings ;  that  the  liens  thereon  may 
be  marshalled ;  that  said  premises  may  be  sold  and  plaintiff's 
said  claim  and  judgment,  so  to  be  rendered,  may  be  satis- 
fied from  the  proceeds  thereof  and  that  he  may  have  such 
other  and  further  relief  as  justice  and  the  nature  of  his  case 
may  require. 

,  Attorney  for  Plaintiff 


The  State  of  Ohio,  County,  ss : 

A.  B.,  being  duly  sworn,  says  he  believes  the  statements 
and  allegations  of  his  foregoing  petition  to  be  true. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  and  in  my  presence,  this 

day  of   ,  A.  D.  19... 

Notary  Public. 

Court  of  Common  Pleas, County,  Ohio. 

A.  B.,  Plaintiff, 

Against  Praecipe. 

C.  D.,  and  others,  Defendants. 

To  the  Clerk :  Issue  summons  on  the  petition  in  the  above 
entitled  action,  to  the  sheriff  of County,  for  the  de- 
fendants, C.  D.,  E.  F.  and  G.  H..  returnable  according  to  law. 

Indorse  amount  claimed:  $ with  interest  from  the  .... 

day  of A.  D.  19.  .,  foreclosure  of  lien,  and  equitable 

relief.  Attorney  for  Plaintiff. 

Service  may  be  made  by  publication,  as  in  other  cases, 
Sec.  3191. 


519  FORM  OF  PETITION SUBCONTRACTOR  OHIO  STATUTE.    [§215 

6.     Form  of  Petition  When  Parties  Act  Under  Contract. 
1.     For  his  first  cause  of  action  herein,  plaintiff  says: 

That  on  the    day  of   ,  A.  D.   19..,  he  duly 

entered   into  a  contract   in   writing  with  the   said  defendant, 

C.  D.,  which  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to-wit. : 
(Here  copy  the  contract  in  full;  or,  if  preferred,  the  copy  may 
be  attached  to  the  petition  with  proper  averment;  stating  the 
substance  and  effect  of  the  contract.) 

^Plaintiff  has  duly  performed  all  the  conditions  of  said  con- 
tract on  his  part  to  be  performed,  but  the  said  defendant 
has  notwithstanding  failed  to  perform  his  part  thereof  in 
this,   to-wit:       (Here   set   out   in   what   his   default   consists.) 

Whereby  plaintiff  has  been  damaged  in  the  sum  of  $ , 

which  he  avers  is  due  to  him  from  the  said  C.  D.,  and  which 

he    claims   with    interest    from    the    day   of    , 

A.  D.  19... 

2.     For  his   second   cause  of  action   herein,   plaintiff   says: 

That  the  items  charged  in  his  account  against  the  said  C. 

D.  hereto  attached,  and  marked  exhibit  B,  were  so  furnished 
and  charged  in  pursuance  of  said  contract  set  out  in  his 
first  cause  of  action,  to  which  reference  is  here  made,  and 
were:     (Here  follow  preceding  form  from  the  *.) 

7.     Form  of  Petition  for  Foreclosure  of  Lien  by  Subcontractor 
Against  Owner. 

Court  of  Common  Pleas, County,  Ohio. 

A.  G.  Plaintiff, 

Against  Petition. 

C.  D.,  Defendant. 


215]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  520 


The  plaintiff  says  :  That  on  the  ....  day  of ,  A.  D.  19.  ., 

he,  as  subcontractor,  commenced  to  furnish  materials  for  the  brick 
work,  under  and  in  pursuance  of  a  contract  with  E.  F.,  princi- 
pal contractor,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  his  contract 
with  the  said  C.  D.,  as  owner,  for  the  construction  of  a 
house  on  the  premises  then  and  now  owned  by  said  C.   D., 

situate   in  the   said   county  of    ,   State   of  Ohio,   and 

bounded  and  described  as  follows,  viz.:  (Here  describe 
premises.) 

On  the    day  of    ,  A.   D.   19..,  plaintiff  had 

duly  performed  all  the  conditions  of  said  contracts  to  be  by 
him  performed,  and  completed  the  furnishing  of  said  ma- 
terials, and  then  there  became  due  to  him  therefor  the  sum 

of  $ ,  no  part  of  which  has  been  paid  to  him   (except 

the  sum  of  $ ),  and  there  is  now  due  and  owing  to  him 

thereon,  the  sum  of dollars. 

On  the day  of ,  A.  D.,  19. .,  plaintiff  filed  with 

said  C.  D.,  a  verified  and  itemized  statement  and  account  of 
the  amount  and  value  of  said  materials,  with  all  credits  and 
set-offs,  in  pursuance  of  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and 

provided  (and  on  the day  of ,  A.  D.  19.  .,  filed 

a  copy  thereof  with  the  recorder  of  said  county).  (Section 
3195.)  Plaintiff  has  not  been  notified  that  said  account  was 
disputed,  and  the  same  was  not  in  fact  disputed  within  five 
days,  that  there  was  due  to  plaintiff  on  account  thereof,  the 

sum  of dollars,  no  part  thereof  has  been  paid,  although 

more  than  five  days  have  since  elapsed. 

Thereafter,  and  on  the day  of ,  A.  D.  19. ., 

the  next  succeeding  payment  became  due  E.  F.,  principal  con- 
tractor, from  C.  D.,  owner,  on  their  said  principal  contract, 
yet  the  said  C.  D.  has  not  paid  to  plaintiff",  his  pro  rata 
share  thereof  on  his  said  claim. 

On  the   day  of   ,  A.  D.   19..,  plaintiff  duly 


521  PETITION    OF    SUBCONTRACTOR OHIO    STATUTE.  [§215 

filed  with  the  recorder  of  said  county,  an  affidavit  and  itemized 
statement  of  his  account  containing  the  amount  and  value 
of  said  materials,  will  all  credits  and  set-ofifs  thereon,  a  copy 
of  the  contract  (or  a  statement  of  the  amount  and  times  of 
payment  to  be  made  according  to  the  contract),  together 
with  a  description  of  said  premises  in  pursuance  of  the  stat- 
ute in  such  case  made  and  provided.  (Plaintiff  caused  said 
C.  D.,  owner,  to  be  notified  that  such  lien  was  in  existence.) 
Plaintiff  therefore  avers  that  by  reason  of  the  facts  afore- 
said, he  has  acquired  and  still  holds  a  valid  subsisting  me- 
chanic's lien  on  the  said  premises  for  his  claim  as  aforesaid, 

amounting   to   $ ,    with    interest   from    ;   no   part 

of  which  has  been  paid.  (If  others  are  interested  in  the  prop- 
erty as  lien-holders  or  otherwise,  add  averment  to  that  effect 
as  in  preceding  forms).  Wherefore  plaintiff  prays  that  an 
account  be  taken  of  the  amount  due  him  ;  that  said  lien  may 
be  duly  declared  and  made  absolute;  that  said  premises  may  be 
sold  and  the  proceeds  applied  in  satisfaction  of  said  claim 
and  lien  ;  and  that  he  may  have  such  further  and  other  relief 
as  is  just.  Attorney  for  Plaintiff. 

(Add  affidavit  and  praecipe.) 

8.     Form  of  Petition  in  Action  for  Money  had  and  Received  by 

Subcontractor  Against  Ozvner,   Where  He  Has  Not 

Been  Paid  According  to  Section 

3200  (231a). 

Court  of  Common  Pleas,   County,  Ohio. 

A.  B.,  plaintiff, 

against  (Petition.) 

C.  D.,  defendant. 

The  plaintifif  says :    That  the  defendant,  C.  D.,  on  or  about  the 

day  of ,  A.  D.  19.  . ,  contracted  with  one  E.  F.,  as 

principal  contractor,  for  the  erection  of  a  certain  house  on  his  lot 


§215]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  522 

of  land  in  said  county  of according  to  certain  plans  and 

specifications    then    agreed    upon    by    them,    for    the    sum    of 

$ ,  in  payments  as  follows,  viz. :     (Here  insert  times  and 

amounts  of  payments.)     Afterwards,  on  or  about  the   

day  of ,  A.  D.  19.  .,  the  said  E.  F.,  principal  con- 
tractor, as  aforesaid,  contracted  with  this  plaintifif,  as  sub- 
contractor, to  construct  the  brick  wood  for  said  house,  under 
and  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  his  said  contract  with 

defendant,   for  the   sum  of  $ ,   payable  when   the   work 

was  completed.     This  plaintiiT  thereupon,  and  on  the   

day  of ,  A.  D.  19.  .,  duly  notified  said  defendant,  as 

the  owner,  of  his  employment  as  subcontractor,  and 
proceeded  to  do  said  brick  work.  That  plaintifif  duly  per- 
formed all  the  conditions  of  said  contract  by  him  to  be  per- 
formed, and  has  completed  said  brick  work.     On  the    

day  of ,  A.  D.  19..,  he  duly  filed  with  the  said  de- 
fendant, C.  D.,  his  affidavit  and  notice  stating  the  amount  and 
value  of  his  said  work  as  subcontractor,  pursuant  to  the 
statute  in  such  case  made  and  provided,  and  demanding  that 
said  defendant  out  of  the  next  subsequent  payment  due  to 
said  principal  contractor  under  said  original  contract,  pay 
him  the  amount  of  his  said  claim. 

Plaintifif  has  never  been  notified  that  his  said  claim  was 
disputed  by  said  E.  P.,  and  the  same  is  admitted  by  him  to 
be  correct,  and  no  part  thereof  has  been  paid,  and  there  is  now 
due  and  owing  thereon  from  the  said  E.  P.  to  this  plaintifif, 

on  account  of  said  work  as  sub-contractor,  the  sum  of  $ 

with   interest   from   the    day  of    A.   D.    19... 

The  defendant,  C.  D.,  still  retains  in  his  hands,  due  to  the 
said  E.  P.,  under  said  contract,  the  payment  due  and  pay- 
able   and  the  same  is  more  than  sufficient  to  pay  plain- 
tifif, and  should  be  applied  by  said  C.  D.,  to  his  claim  in  pur- 
suance of  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and  provided.  Yet 
the  defendant  still  neglects  and  refuses  to  pay  the  same  to 
this  plaintiff.     There  is.  therefore,  by  reason  of  the  premises, 


523  REMEDIES INDIANA  STATUTE.  [§215 

due  from  the  defendant  to  this  plaintiff,  $ ,  with  interest 

from ,  for  money  had  and  received  for  the  use  of  plain- 
tiff, for  which  he  prays  judgment. 

,  Attorney  for  Plaintiff. 

(Add  verification  and  praecipe.) 

§  216.  Remedies  under  the  Indiana  statute. — The  provision 
of  the  Indiana  statute  as  to  the  enforcement  of  the  lien  is 
as  follows :  Any  person  having  such  lien  may  enforce  the 
same,  by  filing  his  complaint  in  the  circuit  or  superior  court  of 
the  county  where  the  real  estate  or  property  on  which  the  lien 
is  so  taken  is  situate  at  any  time  within  one  year  from  the 
time  when  said  notice  has  been  received  for  record  by  the 
recorder  of  the  county ;  or,  if  a  credit  be  given,  from  the  ex- 
piration of  the  credit,  and  if  said  lien  shall  not  be  enforced 
within  the  time  prescribed  by  this  section,  the  same  shall  be 
null  and  void.  If  said  lien  be  foreclosed  as  herein  provided, 
the  court  rendering  judgment  shall  order  the  sale  to  be  made, 
and  the  officers  making  the  sale  shall  sell  the  property  without 
relief  whatever  from  valuation  or  appraisement  laws.^ 

The  provision  as  to  parties  and  consolidation  of  actions 
reads :  In  such  actions,  all  persons  whose  liens  are  recorded 
as  herein  provided  may  be  made  parties,  and  issues  may  be 
made  up,  and  trials  had,  as  in  other  cases;  and  the  court  may, 
by  judgment,  direct  a  sale  of  the  land  and  building  for  the 
satisfaction  of  the  liens  and  costs,  such  sales  to  be  without 
prejudice  to  the  rights  of  any  prior  incumbrancer,  owner  or 
other  person  not  parties  to  the  action.  If  several  such  actions 
be  brought  by  different  claimants,  and  be  pending  at  the  same 
time,  the  court  may  order  them  to  be  consolidated.- 

On  the  question  of  prorating  claims  it  is  provided  that  if 
the  proceeds  of  sale  be  insufificient  to  pay  all  the  claimants, 


1  Acts    1909,    p.    297,    §  5.      See  2  Acts    1909,    p.      297,    §  6.      See 

Burns'  R.  S.  1908,  §8299.  Burns'  R.   S.  1908,   §8300. 


§216] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


524 


then  the  court  shall  order  them  to  be  paid  in  proportion  to 
the  amount  due  each.^ 

1.     JVho  May  Bring  Action. 

The  statute  specifically  says,  that  the  person  who  has  the 
lien  may  bring  the  action.  The  remedy  of  foreclosure  is  a 
cumulative  one.  A  personal  action  may  also  be  brought  un- 
der the  statute  giving  a  right  thereto,^^  as  to  any  balance  due 
the  building  contractor  when  or  after  notice  of  the  claim 
against  him  is  served  on  the  land  owner.^''  In  seeking  to  fore- 
close a  lien,  the  parties  must  pursue  the  method  provided  by 
the  statute  for  its  enforcement.'*  Whoever  holds  the  lien'claim 
is  the  proper  person  to  bring  the  action. ^  Persons  who  have 
separate  liens  on  the  same  property  should  not  join 
in  the  suit  to  foreclose ;  one  lienholder  should  sue,  and  name 
the  others  as  defendants,  and  each  of  the  defendant  lienholders 
should  bring  a  cross-action  to  foreclose  his  lien  by  filing  a  plea 
of  counter-claim.  However,  separate  suits  brought  by  different 
lienholders  may  be  consolidated  afterwards.*'  The  laborer 
or  material  man  is  not  required  to  employ  any  other  remedy 
before  suing  to  foreclose  his  lien.  The  mere  fact  that  the  la- 
borer does  not  attempt  to  get  his  money  from  a  contractor  em- 
ploying him,  will  not  defeat  his  right  to  enforce  a  lien  against 
the  property  for  his  claim.' 


3  Acts  1909.  p.  297,  §  7,  re-enact- 
ing Burns'  R.   S.   1908,   §   8301. 

3a  Acts  1909,  p.  297,  §8,  re-en- 
acting Burns'   1908,   §  8302. 

sbQ'Halloran  v.  Leachey,  39 
Ind.  150;  Crawford  v.  Crockett, 
55  Ind.  220;  Clark  v.  Maxwell,  12 
Ind.  App.  199,  40  N.  E.  274.  Exclu- 
siveness  of  Remedy,  see  §  198. 

4Farmers'  Loan,  &c.,  Co.  v. 
Canada,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  127  Ind.  250, 
26  N.  E.  794,  11  L.  R.  A.  740n; 
Northwestern  Loan,  etc.  Assn.  v. 


McPherson,  23  Ind.  App.  250;  54 
N.  E.  130 ;  Aetna  Life  v.  Finch,  84 
Ind.  301. 

5Trueblood  v.  Shellhouse,  19 
Ind.  App.  91,  49  N.  E.  47.  Who 
may  bring  action,  see  §  164. 

ONorthwestern  Loan,  &c.,  Assn. 
V.  McPherson,  23  Ind.  App.  250.  54 
N.  E.  130;  Acts  1909,  p.  297,  §6. 
See  Burns  R.  S.  1908,  §  8300. 

"  Andis  V.  Davis.  63  Ind.  17.  See 
Beach  v.  Huntsman,  —  Ind.  App. 
— ,  85  N.  E.  523. 


525  REMEDY INDIANA   STATUTE.  [§  216 

2.     Where  Brought. 

The  statute  specifically  provides  that  the  action  must  be 
brought  in  the  circuit  or  superior  court  of  the  county  where 
the  property  on  which  the  lien  was  taken  is  situated.^ 

3.     When  to  be  Brought. 

The  statute  is  specific  in  declaring-  the  time  within  which  the 
action  must  be  brought,  and,  unless  it  is  brought  within  the 
time  thus  fixed,  all  proceedings  are  void.^  Ordinarily  the  time 
is  one  year  from  the  time  that  the  notice  is  received  for 
record  by  the  recorder.  If  a  credit  should  be  given,  and  the 
notice  of  lien  shows  when  it  will  expire,^**  then  the  year  dates 
from  the  time  of  the  expiration  of  the  credit,  but  if  the  record 
of  the  mechanic's  lien  notice  does  not  show  when  the  debt 
thereby  secured  becomes  due,  the  time  for  beginning  foreclos- 
ure proceedings  will  expire  one  year  after  the  date  of  filing 
such  notice. ^*^  Under  the  statute  an  action  is  commenced 
when  the  complaint  is  filed  in  court  and  summons  is  issued 
thereon. ^^  The  statute  has  been  changed  ^^^  since  a  decision 
to  the  contrary  was  rendered. ^^^  There  is  no  necessity  for  a 
demand  to  be  made  before  the  action  is  brought.^^  j^  cases  where 
the  statute  excuses  the  filing  of  the  notice,  then  the  time  will 
date  from  the  time  when  the  notice  should  have  been  filed  were 
it  required  to  be  filed. ^-^  This  limitation  of  one  year  does  not 
apply  to  actions  brought  to  enforce  a  personal  liability 
against    the    owner, i-*    based    on    the    fact   that    he    employed 

8  Acts     1909,   p.   297,     §5.     See  nbCarriger  v.  Mackey,  15  Ind. 

Burns'    R.    S.    1908,    §8299.      See  App.  392;    44  N.  E.  266. 

§  212.  12  Duckwall  v.   Jones,    156   Ind. 

!>CIose  V.  Hunt,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.)  682,  58  N.  E.  1055,  60  N.  E.  797. 

254;   Kulp  v.  Chamberlain,  4  Ind.  issmith   v.    Tate,    30    Ind.    App. 

App.  560,  31  N.  E.  376.    Limitation  367,  66  N.  E.  88. 

of  action,  see  §  213.  14  Bourgette     v.    Hubinger,     30 

9a  Acts  1907,  p.   334,   §§3,  4.  Ind.    296;    Clark    v.    Maxwell,    12 

lOSchneider  v.  Kolthoff,  59  Ind.  Ind.  App.  199;   40  N.  E.  274;  Chi- 

568.     Acts  1907,  p.  334,  §§  3,  4.  cago,  etc.  R.  Co.  v.  Woodard,  159 

11  Burns'  R.  S.  1908,  §317.  Ind.  541;  65  N.  E.  577;  Crawfords- 

iiaActs  1909,  p.  334,  §  3.  ville  v.  Barr,  65  Ind.  367. 


§  216]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  526 

the  laborer  or  bought  the  materials,  or  gave  his  promissory 
note  for  the  amount  clue.  But  where  a  personal  liability  for 
the  contractor's  bills  is  relied  on  by  reason  of  notice  of  a  claim 
before  full  payment  the  laborer  or  material  man  has  only  "the 
same  rights  and  remedies"  as  the  holders  of  mechanics' 
liens. ^■^'^ 

4.     Complaint  or  Petition. 

The  action  is  commenced  by  the  filing  of  the  complaint, 
and  issuing  summons  thereon.^^*^  and  this  complaint 
must  contain  all  the  necessary  averments  to  show  the 
right  of  the  claimant  to  the  lien.  It  must  show 
that  the  materials  were  furnished  for.  and  used  in  the  build- 
ing, sought  to  be  charged, ^^  that  the  person  to  whom  the  ma- 
terials were  furnished  had  authority  to  erect  the  building, ^° 
and  generally  facts  sufficient  to  show  a  contract  for  doing 
the  work,  and  that  the  work  was  done  as  provided  for  in  the 
contract. i'^  The  complaint  should  also  show  the  amount 
claimed  to  be  due.^^  And  it  must  show  who  owned  the  real 
estate,  sought  to  be  affected  at  the  time  the  lien  attached. ^^ 
As  the  notice  of  intention  to  claim  is  the  basis  of  the  lien, 
the  petition  must  show  that  such  notice  was  filed  and  recorded 
within  the  time  fixed  by  law.^"   And  it  is  also  held  necessary  to 

14a  Acts    1909,    p.    297,    §8,    re-  "^     See  §  233. 

enacting  Burns'  R.   S.   1908.     See  i'^  Ogg  v.  Tate,  52  Ind.  159. 

§  302.  1"  Stephenson     v.     Ballard,     50 

14b  Burns'    1908,    §     317.      Acts  Ind.    176;    Adams    v.    Buhler,    116 

1909,  p.  334,  §§  3,  4.  Ind.   100,   18   N.   E.   269.     Contract 

15  Crawfordsville     v.     Barr,     45  with  owner,  see  §  240. 

Ind.  258;   Hill  v.  Braden,  54  Ind.  is  Crawfordsville    v.    Irwin,    46 

72;    Hill    V.    Ryan,    54    Ind.    118;  Ind.  438. 

Crawford  V.  Crockett,  55  Ind.  220;  i9  Adams    v.    Buhler,    116    Ind. 

Talbot  V.    Goddard,    55    Ind.    496;  100,  18  N.  E.  269. 

Crawfordsville    v.     Brundage,     57  20  Sharpe    v.    Clifford,    44    Ind. 

Ind.  262;  beeper  v.  Myers,  10  Ind.  346;    Crawfordsville    v.    Barr,    45 

App.  314,  37  N.  E.  1070;  Manor  \.  Ind.  258;  Crawfordsville  v.  Irwin, 

Heffner,  15  Ind.  App.  299,  43  N.  E.  46     Ind.    438;     Crawfordsville     v. 

1011;  Potter  M.  Co.  V.  A.  B.  Meyer  Brundage,     57     Ind.     262;     Craw- 

&  Co.,  —  Ind.  — ;   86  N.  E.  837.  fordsville    v.    Boots,    76    Ind.    32; 


527 


PETITION INDIANA  STATUTE. 


[§216 


file  an  original  or  copy  of  said  notice  with  the  complaint.-^  A 
proper  description  of  the  property  upon  which  it  is  sought 
to  enforce  the  lien  must  be  set  out  in  the  complaint.^^  If 
the  complaint  shows  that  any  part  of  the  materials  was  fur- 
nished, or  that  any  portion  of  the  work  was  performed  within 
the  time  limit  the  lien  is  filed  in  time,  and  the  complaint  will 
be  good  on  demurrer. ^^^  A  party  seeking  to  enforce  a  mechan- 
ic's lien  must  bring  himself  clearly  within  the  terms  of  the  stat- 
ute by  the  allegations  of  his  complaint,  but  when  he  does  so 
the  statute  will  be  liberally  interpreted  toward  accomplishing 
the  purposes  of  its  enactment.^^^'  But  a  complaint  alleging  suf- 
ficient facts  to  entitle  the  plaintiff  to  recover  is  not  rendered 
bad  on  demurrer  by  reason  of  additional  allegations  which  con- 
stitute mere  surplusage. -^'-' 

5.     Parties. 

The  ordinary  rules  as  to  parties  plaintiff  and  defendant,  will 
apply.  If  lien  holders  are  not  made  parties  they  are  not  af- 
fected by  the  suit,-'^  and  after  the  year  allowed  for  bringing 
such  suit  has  expired  the  lien  will  be  void  as  to  any  other  lienhold- 
ers  not  joined  as  parties.--^"  Parties  having  separate  claims  can- 
not join  in  the  complaint,  but  their  actions  may  be  consoli- 
dated by  order  of  the  court.--*  The  owner  of  an 
equity     of     redemption     in     the     property     is     a     necessary 


Hubbard  v.  Moore,  132  Ind.  ITS, 
31  N.  E.  534. 

2  1  Scott  V.  Goldinghorst,  123 
Ind.  268,  24  N.  E.  333;  Davis  v. 
McMillan,  13  Ind.  App.  424,  41 
N.   E.   851. 

22  Crawfordsville  v.  Barr,  G5 
Ind.  367. 

22aConlee  v.  Clark,  14  Ind.  App. 
205,  14  N.  E.  762;  Jeffersonville. 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Riter,  138  Ind.  170,  37 
N.   E.   652. 

22b  Potter  M.  Co.  v.  A.  B.  Meyer 
&  Co.,  —  Ind.  — ,  86  N.  E.  837. 


22cOclis  V.  M.  J.  Carnahan  Co., 
—  Ind.  App.  — ,  76  N.  E.  788. 

2''i  Deming-Colburn  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Union  Nat.  Sav.,  &c.,  Assn.,  151 
Ind.  463,  51  N.  E.  936;  Stoermer 
V.  Peoples'  Sav.  Bank,  152  Ind. 
104,  52  N.  E.  606;  Union  Nat.  Sav., 
&c.,  Assn.  v.  Helberg,  152  Ind. 
139,  51  N.  E.  916;  Martin  v.  Berry, 
159   Ind.   566,   64   N.   E.   912. 

2-5a  Union  Nat.  etc.  Assn.  v.  Hel- 
berg, 152  Ind.   139;    51  N.  E.  916. 

2-*  Northwestern  Loan,  &c., 
Assn.  V.  McPherson,  23  Ind.  App. 
250,   54  N.  E.   130. 


§  216]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  528 

party.25  But  when  the  person  has  conveyed  away 
the  property,  and  has  no  longer  an  interest  therein,  the 
grantee  should  be  made  a  party.^*^  If  a  subsequent  pur- 
chaser is  made  a  party,  he  must  set  up  his  claim  or  be  barred.^^ 
The  husband  of  a  wife  is  a  proper  party  defendant.^s  So  the 
head  contractor  is  a  proper,  although  not  always  a  necessary 
party.29  If  the  owner  has  assumed  the  payment  of  the  lien, 
then  the  head  contractor  is  not  a  necessary  party.^*^ 

6.     Trial. 

Actions  to  enforce  mechanics'  liens  are  not  triable  by  jury.^^ 
Questions  as  to  the  issues  and  the  evidence  to  establish  same 
do  not  materially  differ  from  other  similar  cases.^- 

7.     Judgment,  Etc. 

Judgment  is  rendered  as  in  ordinary  cases,  and  an  order 
of  sale  made  to  sell  the  land  and  the  building,  and  the  land 
is  sold  as  provided  by  law.  If  mortgage  lienholders  are  not 
made  parties  to  the  action,  such  lienholders  may  enjoin  the 
sale  of  property .^^  If  the  property  is  sold  under  an  order  of 
foreclosure  the  purchaser  has  a  right  of  redemption  against 
a  mortgage  lienholder  not  made  a  party,-^^  as  successor  to  the 
title  of  the  original  owner.  Where  several  buildings 
are     erected     under     one     contract,     a     decree     for     a     lien 

2-j  Vorhees  v.  Beckwell,  10  Incl.  so  Leeper  v.  Myers,  10  Ind.  App. 

App.   224,    37    N.    E.    811.      See    §§  314,  37  N.  E.  1070. 

221-228.  siAlbrecht    v.    Foster    Lumber 

20  Marvin  v.  Taylor,  27  Ind.  73;  Co.,    126   Ind.    318,   26  N.   E.    157; 

Kellenberger    v.    Boyer,    37    Ind.  Reichert   v.    Krass,    13    Ind.    App. 

188.  348,  40  N.  E.  706,  41  N.  E.  835. 

27  Woolen  V.  Wishmier,  70  Ind.  32  Miller  v.  Fosdick,  26  Ind. 
108.  App.  293,  59  N.  E.  488.     Trial,  see 

28  Scott     V.     Goldinghorst,     123  §  265. 

Ind.  268,  24  N.  E.  333;  Vorhees  v.  33  Martin  v.  Berry,  159  Ind.  566, 

Beckwell,  10  Ind.  App.  224,  37  N.  64  N.  E.  912.    Findings,  see  §  271. 

E.  811.  34  Union  Nat.  Sav.  Assn.  v.  Hel- 

20  Hubbard   v.    Moore,    132    Ind.  berg,  152  Ind.  139,  51  N.  E.  916. 
178,  31  N.  E.   534. 


529  FORMS   OF  COMPLAINT INDIANA   STATUTE.  [§  217 

upon  each  building  for  a  specific  amount  will  be  justified.^^ 
If  the  judgment  specifies  the  amount  due  and  directs  sale  of 
the  property  for  the  payment  thereof,  it  will  be  sufificient.^*'  If  the 
owner  has  only  a  leasehold  interest,  or  the  land  is  in- 
cumbered by  mortgage,  the  lien  will  extend  to  a  new  building, 
in  the  construction  of  which  plaintiff's  labor  or  materials  were 
used,  separate  and  apart  from  the  land,  and  it  may  be  sold  to 
satisfy  the  lien.^"^  A  general  verdict  or  finding  of  the  truth  of 
the  complaint  entitles  plaintiff  to  a  decree  enforcing  sale  of 
property  .^^ 

8.     Distribution  of  Proceeds. 

The  proceeds  of  sale  should  be  distributed  according  to  the 
priority  of  the  various  claimants.^^  The  sale  of  the  property 
divests  the  property  of  the  lien,  for  the  lien  itself  is  trans- 
ferred to  the  fund  derived  from  such  sale."**^  The  provision  re- 
lating to  attorney  fees  is  constitutional,  and  they  may  be 
allowed  as  the  statute  provides,''^  even  though  notes  have  been 
given  for  the  amount  secured  by  the  lien  which  do  not  provide 
for  attorney  fees.'*^'*  If  there  is  nothing  due  the  plaintiff,  there 
can  be  no  allowance  for  attorney  fees.^^  Costs  are  also  proper 
to  be  considered  in  distribution  of  proceeds.'*^ 

§  217.  Remedies  under  Indiana  statute — Forms  of  com- 
plaints.— The  following  forms  are  adapted  to  the  different 
relations  indicated: 

33  Manor    v.    Heffner,     15     Ind.  40  Totten,    &c.,    Foundry    Co.   v. 

App.  299,  43  N.  E.  1011.  Muncie  Nail  Co.,  148  Ind.  372,  47 

•i«  Deeming  v.  Patterson,  10  Ind.  N.   E.  703. 

251.  41  Duckwall    v.   Jones,   156   Ind. 

37  See  §  45,  45a.  682,  58  N.  E.  1055,  60  N.  E.  797. 

38  Nordyke-Marmon  Co.  v.  Dick-  4ia  Beach  v.  Huntsman,  —  Ind. 
son,  76  Ind.  188.  App.  — ,  85  N.  E.  523. 

•■••'Thorpe  Block  Sav.,  &c.,  Assn.  -12  Bird   v.   St.   John's   Episcopal 

V.  James,  13  Ind.  App.  522,  41  N.  Church,  154  Ind.  138,  56  N.  E.  129. 
E.   978.      Proceeds  of  sale,   see   §  43    Scott    v.    Goldinghorst,    123 

293.  Ind.  268,  24  N.  E.  333. 

See   §302. 
34 


§  217]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  530 

1.     Form  of  Petition  or  Complaint  by  Principal  Contractor. 

(Title  and  beginning.) 

That  on  the day  of ,  19 .  . ,  said  defendant 

was  the  owner  of  the  following  described  real  estate  in  the 
city  of  Indianapolis,  county  of  Marion,  state  of  Indiana:  (Here 
describe  it)  ;  that  said  defendant  ever  since  has  been,  and  still 
is,  the  owner  of  said  real  estate. 

This  plaintiff  avers  that  on  said  day  plaintifif  and  defendant 
entered  into  a  certain  written  contract  and  agreement  of  said 
date  by  which  this  plaintiff  promised  and  agreed  to  furnish  the 
material  in  and  for  the  construction  of  a  certain  dwelling 
house  upon  said  above  described  real  estate  for  said  defend- 
ant, and   in  consideration  of  which   said  defendant  promised 

and  agreed  to  pay  this  plaintiff  therefor  the  sum  of   

dollars ;  which  said  agreement  is  in  the  words  and  figures  as 
follows:     (Here  copy  agreement.) 

Plaintiff'  avers  that  pursuant  to  said  agreement  this  plain- 
tiff did  furnish  the  material,  and  did  perform  all  the  labor 
and  services  in  the  construction  and  erection  of  said  dwelling 
house  on  said  real  estate ;  the  items  and  bill  of  particulars 
of  said  material  and  services  are  as  follows,  to-wit. :  (Here 
copy  items)  ;  that  said  material  was  furnished  for,  and  used, 
and  the  labor  and  services  performed,  in  the  construction  of 
said  dwelling. 

This    plaintiff'    further   avers    that    on    the     day     of 

,  19.  .,  and  within  sixty  days  from  the  time  of  furnish- 
ing said  materials  and  performing  said  labor  and  services  this 
plaintiff  filed  in  the  recorder's  office  of  the  county  of  Marion, 
State  of  Indiana,  a  notice  in  writing  of  his  intention  to  hold  a 
lien  on  said  above  described  real  estate  and  the  said 
building  thereon ;  and  therein  specifically  set  forth  the  amount 
claimed,  to  wit.:    dollars,  together  with  a  description 


531       COMPLAINT  OF   SUBCONTRACTOR INDIANA  STATUTE.       [§217 

of  said  above  described  real  estate ;  a  copy  of  which  said 
notice  is  filed  herewith,  made  a  part  of  this  complaint  and 
marked  exhibit  A. 

That  said  notice  was,  on  the day  of ,  19.  ., 

by  said  'recorder  duly  recorded  in  the  recorder's  office  of  said 

county  in  miscellaneous  book  No ,  page   .  . .  .  ;  that  said 

sum  of dollars  is  now  due  and  unpaid. 

That  a  reasonable  fee  for  plaintiff's  attorney  and  for  his 
services  in  this  action  is dollars. 

Plaintiff  further  avers  that  said  defendants  D.  E.  and  E.  F. 
and  F.  G.  claim  to  have  some  interest  and  to  hold  liens  upon 
said  above  described  real  estate,  and  they  are  made  parties 
hereto  to  answer  to  their  interests  therein. 

Wherefore  plaintiff  sues  and  asks  for  judgment  in  the  surp 

of   dollars  and  the  foreclosure  of  his  said  lien  and  an 

order  for  the  sale  of  said  property  and  for  all  other  proper 
relief.  (Signed.) 

2.    Form  of  Petition  or  Complaint  of  Subcontractor. 

(Title  and  beginning.) 

That  on  the day  of ,  19.  . ,  said  defendant 

was  the  owner  of  the  following  described  real  estate  in  the 
city  of  Indianapolis,  county  of  Marion,  state  of  Indiana: 
(Here  describe  it)  ;  that  said  defendant  ever  since  has  been, 
and  still  is,  the  owner  of  said  real  estate. 

This  plaintiff  avers  that  on  said  day  said  defendant  and  one 
R.  S.  entered  into  a  certain  contract  and  agreement  in  writ- 
ing, whereby  the  said  R.  S.  undertook  and  agreed  to  furnish 
all  materials  and  perform  the  labor  in  the  construction  of  a 
dwelling  house  for  said  defendant  on  said  above  described 
real  estate  in  consideration  of  the  payment  of  a  certain  sum 
by  said  defendant ;  that  in  pursuance  of  said  contract  and  in 
the  execution  thereof  and  in  the  construction  and  erection 
of  said  dwelling  house  the  said  R.  S.  purchased  of  this  plain- 
tiff the  following  materials,  to-wit. :    (Here  set  out  items  of 


§  217]  ENFORCEMENT  OF   LIEN.  532 

materials),  and  that  this  plaintiff  performed  work  and  labor 
for  said  R.  S.  as  follows:     (Here  set  out  items  of  labor.) 

That  said  materials  were  furnished  and  said  work  performed 
in  the  construction  and  erection  of  said  dwelling  house  and 
are  of  the  value  of dollars. 

This    plaintiff    further    avers    that    on    the    day    of 

,  19..,  and  within  sixty  days  from  the  time  of  fur- 
nishing said  materials  and  performing  said  labor  and  services 
this  plaintiff  filed  in  the  recorder's  office  of  the  county  of 
Marion,  state  of  Indiana,  a  notice  in  writing  of  his  intention 
to  hold  a  lien  on  said  above  described  real  estate  and  the  said 
building  thereon ;  and  therein  specifically  set  forth  the  amount 

claimed,  to-wit. : dollars,  together  with  a  description  of 

said  above  described  real  estate ;  a  copy  of  which  said  notice 
is  filed  herewith,  made  a  part  of  this  complaint  and  marked 
exhibit  A. 

That  said  notice  was,  on  the   day  of ,  19. ., 

by    said    recorder    duly    recorded    in    the    recorder's    office    of 

said  county  in  miscellaneous  book  No ,  page   ; 

that  said  sum  of dollars  is  now  due  and  unpaid. 

That  a  reasonable  fee  for  plaintiff's  attorney  and  for  his 
services  in  this  action  is dollars. 

Plaintiff  further  avers  that  said  defendants,  D.  E.  and  E.  F. 
and  F.  G.,  claim  to  have  some  interest  and  to  hold  liens  upon 
said  above  described  real  estate,  and  they  are  made  parties 
hereto  to  answer  to  their  interests  therein. 

Wherefore  plaintiff  sues  and  asks  for  judgment  in  the  sum 

of   dollars  and  the  foreclosure  of  his  said  lien  and  an 

order  for  the  sale  of  said  property  and  for  all  other  proper 
relief.  (Signed.) 

3.      Form  of  Petition  or  Complaint  of  Material  Man. 

(Title  and  beginning.) 

That  on  the day  of 19.  .,  and  divers  days 

and    times    thereafter    this    plaintiff'    sold,    furnished    ?.nd    de- 


533  FORM   INDIANA  STATUTE.  [§  217 

livered  to  said  defendant,  at  defendant's  special  instance  and 
request,  certain  materials  (or  performed  certain  labor),  to- 
wit. :     Lumber,   lath,  shingles,  door  frames,   window  frames, 

doors  and  sash,  of  the  value  of dollars,  a  bill  of  window 

frames,  doors  and  sash,  of  the  value  of dollars,  a  bill 

of  particulars  of  all  of  which  is  as  follows,  to-wit. :  (Here 
copy  bill  of  particulars.) 

That  all  of  said  materials  were  sold  by  plaintifif  for  the 
purpose  of  being  used  in  and  were  used  in  the  construction 
and  erection  of  a  certain  building  and  dwelling  house  built 
and  erected  by  said  defendant  on  the  following  described  real 
estate  in  the  city  of  Indianapolis,  said  county  of  Marion,  state 
of  Indiana,  to-wit.:     (Here  describe  it.) 

This   plaintiff    further   avers   that   on   the     day    of 

,  19.  .,  and  within  sixty  days  from  the  time  of  fur- 
nishing said  materials  and  performing  said  labor  and  services 
this  plaintiff"  filed  in  the  recorder's  offfce  of  the  county  of 
Marion,  state  of  Indiana,  a  notice  in  writing  of  his  intention 
to  hold  a  lien  on  said  above  described  real  estate  and  the  said 
building  thereon;  and  therein  specifically  set  forth  the  amount 

claimed,  to-wit. :    dollars,  together  with  a  description 

of  said  above  described  real  estate ;  a  copy  of  which  said 
notice  is  filed  herewith,  made  a  part  of  this  complaint  and 
marked  exhibit  A. 

That  said  notice  was,  on  the day  of ,  19.  ., 

by  said  recorder  duly  recorded  in  the  recorder's  office  of  said 

county  in  miscellaneous  book  No ,  page    ;  that 

said  sum  of dollars  is  now  due  and  unpaid. 

That  a  reasonable  fee  for  plaintiff's  attorney  and  for  his 
services  in  this  action  is dollars. 

Plaintiff  further  avers  that  said  defendants,  D.  E.  and  E.  F. 
and  F.  G.,  claim  to  have  some  interest  and  to  hold  liens  upon 
said  above  described  real  estate,  and  they  are  made  parties 
hereto  to  answer  to  their  interests  therein. 

Wherefore  plaintiff  sues  and  asks  for  judgment  in  the  sum 


§  218]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  534 

of   dollars  and  the  foreclosure  of  his  said  lien  and  an 

order  for  the  sale  of  said  property  and  for  all  other  proper 
relief.  (Signed.) 

§  218.  Various  matters  determining  limitation  of  right  to 
sue. — These  periods  of  limitation  of  the  right  to  sue  are  made 
for  the  protection  of  the  owner,  that  his  property  may  not 
have  a  lien  unduly  prolonged  thereon,  and  the  courts  require 
a  strict  compliance  with  the  statute,^  and  hold  the  lien  barred 
if  the  action  is  not  brought  within  the  required  time.-  If  an 
action  is  brought  by  one  lien  holder  and  another  comes  in, 
the  rule  generally  applied  is  that  he  wall  be  in  time  if  his  answer 
is  filed  Avithin  the  time  in  which  he  could  have  brought  the 
original  action.-^  Some  courts  have  held  that  the  fact  that  the 
lien  holder  has  brought  an  action  or  the  property  is  in  court, 
will  not  excuse  other  lien  holders  from  filing  their  suit  or 
answers  within  the  required  time*  But  if  the  lien  holder  was 
made  a  party,  this  rule  would  probably  not  be  applied  if  he  set 
up  his  claim  within  the  time  allowed  to  plead  the  same  in 
ordinary  actions.  But  when  the  period  is  fixed  from  the  filing 
of  the  lien,  this  term  is  held  to  mean  from  the  time  the  lien 
should)  have  been  filed. ^  Some  statutes  make  the  time  at  which 
the  action  should  be  brought  depend  on  the  date  of  the  ma- 
turity of  the  claim  or  the  accrual  of  the  indebtedness  and  in 
such  cases  the  date  of  the  last  item  of  the  account,  in  the 
absence    of    a    fixed    time    for    payment.'^     will    be    regard- 

1  Mcintosh  V.  Schroeder,  154  111.  s  Title  Gurantee  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
520,  39  N.  E.  47S;  Lee  v.  Wrenn,  35  Ore.  62,  56  Pac.  271,  76 
Charabers,  13  Mo.  238;   Pardue  v.      Am.   St.  454. 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  52  Neb.  201,  -i  Bradford    v.    Dorsey,    63    Cal. 

71   N.    W.    1022,    66    Am.    St.    489;  122. 

Service    v.    McMahon,     42     Wash.  ^*  Sqnier  v.  Parks,  56  Iowa  407, 

452,  85  Pac.  33.  9    N.    W.    324:    Gilcrest   v.    Gotts- 

2  A    personal    judgment    might  chalk,  39  Iowa  311. 

be    had    on     the     debt    however.  •^  Doyle    v.    Wagner,    100    ^Minu. 

IMonroe  v.  Hanson,  47  Neb.  30,  66      380,   111   N.   W.    275.     The   giving 
N.  W.  12.  of  a  note  due  one  day  after  date. 


535 


MATTERS  DETERMINING  RIGHT  TO  SUE. 


[§219 


ed  as  the  maturity  of  the  debt,"  and  the  action  must  be 
brought  within  the  required  period,  dating  from  that  time,^ 
Where  credit  is  given,  the  debt  will  mature  from  the  time  the 
credit  expires.'^  However  if  neither  the  contract  nor  the 
notice  states  that  credit  is  given,  it  will  be  assumed,  especially 
as  to  third  parties,  that  there  is  no  credit. ^*^  Of  course,  if  the 
contract  fixes  the  time  of  payment  that  will  control, ^^  and 
the  period  will  date  from  that  time.^^  In  the  absence  of  a 
special  provision,  a  subcontractor  will  be  within  the  time  limit 
if  he  brings  the  action  within  the  same  time  that  the  principal 
contractor  might  have  done  so.^^ 

§  219.  Various  matters  determining  limitation  of  right  to 
sue,  continued. — Some  statutes  fix  the  time  for  the  beginning  of 
the  period  within  which  an  action  must  be  brought  as  the 
cessation  of  the  work.  This  term  is  generally  used  synony- 
mously with  completion  of  the  work.^  But  if  the  contractor  or 
subcontractor  is  discharged  before  completing  his  contract  the 


does  not  extend  the  time.  Jones 
V.  Alexander,  10  Sm.  &  S.  (Miss.) 
627. 

'  Garrison  v.  Hawkins  Lumber 
Co.,  Ill  Ala.  308,  20  So.  427.  Ma- 
turity of  claim  for  filing  state- 
ment, see  §  94.  Necessity  that 
claim  be  mentioned,  see  §  102. 

8  A  contractor's  lien  is  lost  un- 
less the  land  is  attached  within 
ninety  days  from  the  pay  day. 
Johnson  v.  Pike,  35  Me.  291. 

9  Hill  V.  Stagg,  1  Wils.  (Ind.) 
403;  Mix  v.  Ely,  2  G.  Greene 
(Iowa)  513.  Maturity  of  note. 
Bonsall  v.  Taylor,  5  Iowa  546. 

i«)  Schneider  v.  Kolthoff,  59  Ind. 
568. 

11  Sedgwick  v.  Concord  Apart- 
ment House  Co.,  104  111.  Apj).  5. 

12  From    last     installment     due. 


McClellan  v.  Smith,  11  Cush. 
(Mass.)  238.  Where  the  contract 
provides  that  if  there  be  a  diffi- 
culty between  the  parties  it  shall 
be  submitted  to  arbitration,  the 
date  of  the  arbitrator's  award, 
will  be  the  time  the  debt  is  due, 
etc.  Kirby  v.  Tead,  13  Mete. 
(Mass.)  149.  Where  the  contract 
stated  that  a  note  due  in  six 
months  should  be  given  when  job 
was  completed,  the  time  dated 
from  the  maturity  of  this  note. 
Even  if  this  note  were  not  given, 
still  it  would  date  from  the  time 
it  would  have  been  due  if  it  had 
been  given.  Wheeler  v.  Schroe- 
der,  4  R.  I.  383. 

13  Meeks  v.  Sims,  84  111.  422. 

1  Completion  of  work,  see  §§ 
49,  210. 


219] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


536 


time  of  his  discharge  will  be  the  cessation  of  the  work,  and 
fix  the  date  from  which  the  period  will  run  for  the  commence- 
ment of  his  action.-^  By  completion  of  the  work  is  usually- 
meant  the  completion  of  the  whole  of  the  building  or  whatever 
part  thereof  the  party  is  required  to  perform  under  his  con- 
tract."^  If  the  payment  is  due  on  completion  of  the  contract 
and  the  parties  extend  the  time  of  the  completion,  this  will 
of  course,  extend  the  time  within  which  the  action  may  be 
brought.^  Difficulty  is  experienced  in  fixing  the  date  wdien 
the  period  should  begin  to  run  where  the  materials  are  fur- 
nished at  different  times,  and  under  what  are  known  as  con- 
tinuing contracts.*^  Generally  in  such  cases  the  date  of  the 
last  work  is  the  time  the  last  item  of  material  was  furnished,'' 
even  though  the  contract  provides  that  payments  shall  be 
made  on  the  first  of  each  month  or  in  installments.^  If  the 
statute  fixes  the  delivery  of  the  materials  as  the  date  from 


3  Huntington  v.  Barton,  64  111. 
502;  Freeto  v.  Houghton,  58  N.  H. 
100. 

4  United  States.—  South  Fork 
Canal  Co.  v.  Gordon,  6  Wall.  (U. 
S.)  561,  18  L.  ed.  894. 

California. — Hughes  v.  Hoover, 
3  Cal.  App.  145,  84  Pac.  681.  See 
§  95. 

Indiana. — ^Hamilton  v.  Naylor, 
72   Ind.   171. 

Itentncky. — Longest  v.  Breden, 
9   Dana    (Ky.)    141. 

Pennsylrania. — Hern  v.  Hop- 
kins, 13  Serg.  &  R.  (Pa.)  269. 

Vermont. — Piper  v.  Hoyt,  61  Vt. 
539,  17  Atl.  798. 

Manitoba. — McLennan  v.  Winni- 
peg, 3  Manitoba  474.  Proof  must 
clearly  show  it  is  within  time. 
Kay  V.  Smith,  10  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 
41. 

5  Sedgwick  v.  Concord  Apart- 
ment House  Co.,  104  111.  App.  5. 


G  See  §  98. 

"  Indiana.  —  McKinney  v. 
Springer,  3  Ind.  59,  54  Am.  Dec. 
470n. 

Iowa. — Merchand  v.  Cook,  4  G. 
Greene  (Iowa)  115. 

yew  Hampsliire. — Hill  v.  Calla- 
han, 58  N.  H.  497. 

Tennessee. — Luter  v.  Cobb,  1 
Cold.  (Tenn.)  525. 

"Wisconsin. — ^Fowler  v.  Bailley, 
14  Wis.  125.  Where  there  has 
been  a  continuous  delivery  of  ma- 
terials, which  are  put  into  a 
structure,  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions begins  to  run  against  the 
lien  therefor  on  the  structure, 
from  the  delivery  of  the  last  lot 
of  materials.  O'Leary  v.  Burns, 
53  Miss.  171. 

8  Carey-Lombard  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Fullenwider,  150  111.  629,  37  N. 
E.  899;  Capital  Lumbering  Co.  v. 
Ryan,  34  Ore.  73,  54  Pac.  1093. 


537 


WHEN    ACTION    IS  DEEMED    COMMENCED. 


[§220 


which  the  limitation  begins  to  run  a  petition  will  be  in  time 
if  filed  within  the  time  limit  after  the  delivery  of  the  last  article 
of  materials.^ 

§  220.  When  suit  is  regarded  as  brought. — As  a  general 
rule  a  suit  is  commenced  when  the  summons  for  defendant  is 
issued,^  though  the  summons  is  not  served  until  afterwards.^ 
But  no  one  is  bound  unless  summons  is  issued  and  service 
made.-"^  The  failure  to  serve  can  only  be  taken  advantage  of 
by  persons  not  served.'*    Under  some  statutes  the  action  is  re- 


9  Pike  V.  Scott,  60  N.  H.  469; 
Gurney  v.  Walsham,  16  R.  I.  698, 
19   Atl.   323. 

1  California.  —  Van  Winkle  r. 
Stow,  23  Cal.  457;  Flandreau  v. 
White,  18  Cal.  639;  Green  v. 
Jackson   Water   Co.,   10    Cal.    374. 

New  Jersey. — Bennet  v.  Tren- 
ton Locomotive  &  Mach.  Mfg.  Co., 
32  N.  J.  L.  513,  31  N.  J.  L.  246. 

New  York. — Gee  v.  Torrey,  77 
Hun  (N.  Y.)23,  28  N.  Y.  Supp. 
239;  Hammond  v.  Shepard,  50 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  318,  3  N.  Y.  Supp. 
349.  A  purely  statutory  lien  must 
conform  exactly  to  the  statutory 
conditions;  but  when  it  once  at- 
taches, and  is  put  in  process  of 
foreclosure,  the  proceedings, 
while  in  part  definitely  fixed,  are 
nevertheless  in  important  particu- 
lars left  to  the  general  course  of 
practice.  No  construction  should 
be  strained  at  in  order  to  defeat 
them,  but  the  rights  of  all  parties 
should  be  harmonized  and  re- 
spected as  far  as  is  reasonably 
practicable.  Sheridan  v.  Cameron, 
65  Mich.  680,  32  N.  W.  894.  See 
Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics' 
Liens  §  290. 


2  Western  Sash  &  Door  Co.  v. 
Heiman,  65  Kan.  5,  68  Pac.  1080; 
Spofford  V.  Huse,  9  Allen  (Mass.) 
575. 

Defective  service. — The  service 
of  summons  on  a  claim  under  the 
mechanic's  l!en  law  was  defec- 
tive. A  new  summons  was  issued 
more  than  a  year  after  the  fur- 
nishing of  the  labor  and  ma- 
terials. The  service  of  the  new 
summons  was  valid  and  effectual, 
and  the  claim  good.  Mutual  Ben. 
Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Rowand,  11  C.  B. 
Green  (N.  J.  Eq.)  389. 

3  H.  furnished  a  lot  for  S.  to 
build  on,  agreeing  to  convey  to 
whomsoever  S.  might  sell.  The 
house  being  built,  H.  conveyed  to 
v.,  taking,  for  part  of  the  price, 
a  mortgage  which  he  assigned  to 
O.  Held  that  neither  V.'s  grantee 
nor  0.  were  so  united  in  interest 
with  H.  that  service  on  him  com- 
menced as  to  them  an  action  to 
foreclose  a  material  man's  lien. 
Rice  V.  Simpson,  30  Kan.  28,  1 
Pac.  311. 

4  Casserly  v.  Waite,  124  Mich. 
157,  82  N.  W.  841,  83  Am.  St.  320. 


220] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


538 


garded  as  broug"ht  when  the  petition  is  filed  within  the  time 
limit,^  provided  by  law.*^  The  courts  of  New  York  have  held 
that  the  rights  of  all  defendants  are  saved  if  the  plaintiff 
commences  his  action  in  time.*  In  other  states,  however, 
cross-petitioners  are  held  to  be  barred  where  they  do  not  file 
their  answers  within  the  limited  time  in  which  they  should 
have  filed  their  petitions."'  If  a  defective  action  is  brought 
and  thereafter  within  the  time  limit  it  is  amended  the  action 
will  be  safe,^*^   for  if  the   amended  action  is   brought  within 


5  ludiaua. — Carriger  v.  Mackey, 
15  Ind.  App.  392,  44  N.  E.  266. 

Michigan. — Casserly  v.  Waite, 
124  Mich.  157,  82  N.  W.  841,  83 
Am.  St.  320;  Hannah,  &c..  Mer- 
cantile Co.  V.  Mosser,  105  Mich. 
18,  62  N.  W.  1120;  Gosline  v. 
Thompson,  61  Mo.  471. 

Mississippi. — Christian  v.  O'Neil, 
46  Miss.  669. 

Jfew  York. — Wright  v.  Roberts, 
55  Hun  (N.  Y.)  610,  8  N.  Y.  Supp. 
745. 

Soiitli  Carolina,  —  Oliver  v. 
Fowler,  22  S.  Car.  534. 

6  The  powers  of  amendment 
conferred  on  the  courts  hy  the 
act  do  not  enable  them  to  restore 
the  lien  when  it  has  been  dis- 
charged by  non-compliance  with 
this  mandate.  Required  indorse- 
ments must  be  made.  Wheeler  v. 
Almond,  17  Vroom  (N.  J.  L.)  161. 

8  Neuchatel  Asphalt  Co.  v.  New 
York,  9  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  376,  30  N. 
Y.   Supp.   252. 

9  Coggan  V.  Reeves,  3  Ore.  275. 
The  mere  filing  of  an  appearance 
by  said  intervening  petitioners 
after  notice  served  on  them  was 
not  the  commencement  of  a  suit 
to  enforce  their  lien,  within  such 
statute.      Davis    v.     Arthur,     170 


Mass.  449,  49  N.  E.  739.  See  Goff 
V.  Hosmer,  20  R.  I.  91,  37  Atl.  533, 
and  Tingley  v.  White,  17  R.  I. 
533,  23  Atl.  100,  as  to  construc- 
tion of  Rhode  Island  statutes. 
See  Piper  v.  Hoyt,  61  Vt.  539,  17 
Atl.  798,  where  it  is  required  that 
the  property  must  be  attached 
before  the   action  is  commenced. 

Comnmuity  Property.  —  Where 
an  action  to  foreclose  a  me- 
chanic's lien  was  begun  against 
community  property,  and  one  of 
the  owners  thereof  was  not  made 
a  party  until  more  than  a  year 
after  the  lien  notice  was  filed,  the 
judgment  of  foreclosure  was  void, 
though  valid  as  a  personal  judg- 
ment against  the  community,  un- 
der 2  Ballinger's  Ann.  Codes  &  St. 
§  5908,  requiring  the  foreclosure 
action  to  be  commenced  within 
eight  months  of  the  filing  of  the 
claim;  and  the  defense  is  not 
waived  by  failure  to  plead,  the 
bringing  of  the  action  within  the 
required  time  being  a  jurisdic- 
tional fact  to  be  shown  by  plain- 
tiff. Peterson  v.  Dillon,  27  Wash. 
78,  67  Pac.  397. 

1"  :\Iann  v.  Schroer.  50  IMo.  306. 
Amendment  of  claim,  see  §  99. 

538 


539 


WHEN  ACTION  DEEMED  COMMENCED. 


[§220 


the  time  limit  it  would  stand  as  an  original  action  and  not  be 
lost.i^  In  some  states  there  is  a  general  provision  of  practice 
that  in  all  cases  where  there  has  been  an  attempt  to  com- 
mence an  action  that  a  certain  time  will  be  allowed  to  amend 
after  the  court  has  held  the  first  action  invalid. ^^  If  the 
statute  provides  that  the  action  must  be  brought  not  later  than 
a  certain  date  and  it  is  prolonged  beyond  that  time,  the  lien 
will  be  lost.i^  If  the  property  goes  into  the  hands  of  a  re- 
ceiver the  claimant  will  not  be  cut  out  for  failure  to  diligently 
prosecute  as  the  receiver  is  supposed  to  take  up  such  mat- 
ters.^"^  And  if  a  party  is  once  in  court,  he  cannot  generally  lose 
his  rights,  if  he  exercises  ordinary  diligence  to  have  the  same 
looked  after.i^     A  former  statute  of  New  York  required  the 


11  Walker  v.  Burt,  57  Ga.  20; 
Wheeler  v.  Almond,  46  N.  J.  L. 
161. 

12  Rice  V.  Brown,  1  Kan.  App. 
646,  42  Pac.  396;  Seaton  v.  Hixon, 
35  Kan.  663,  12  Pac.  22.  If  a  lien 
should  be  prematurely  filed,  and 
a  second  is  filed  within  the  period 
allowed,  the  first  being  inopera- 
tive, the  second  will  be  valid. 
Davis  V.  Schuler,  38  Mo.  24. 

13  California. — Green  v.  Jack- 
son Water  Co.,  10  Cal.  374. 

Indiaua. — Kulp  v.  Chamberlain, 
4  Ind.  App.  560,  31  N.  E.  376. 

Minnesota. — Malmgren  v.  Phin- 
ney,  50  Minn.  457,  52  N.  W.  915, 
18  L.  R.  A.  753;  Steinmetz  v.  St. 
Paul  Trust  Co.,  50  Minn.  445,  52 
N.  W.  915. 

MississipiM. — Dinkins  v.  Bow- 
ers, 49  Miss.  219. 

New  York. — Mushlitt  v.  Silver- 
mann,  50  N.  Y.  360. 

Tennessee. — Ragon  v.  Howard, 
97  Tenn.  334,  37  S.  W.  136. 

Where  a  lien  claimant  ap- 
pears    in     such     an     action     for 


the  purpose  of  asserting  his  lien, 
he  makes  the  action  his  own  for 
the  purpose  of  enforcing  his  lien, 
and  if  he  is  in  time,  the  fact  that 
plaintiff's  lien  is  barred  or  that 
plaintiffs  from  any  cause  fail  to 
recover,  will  not  affect  him. 
Burns  v.  Phinney,  53  Minn.  431, 
55  N.  W.  540.     See  §  188. 

14  Ennis  v.  Eden  Mills  Paper 
Co.,   65   N.   J.  L.   577,   48  Atl.   610. 

13  Abham  v.  Boyd,  5  Daly  (N. 
Y.)  321.  Under  Pub.  St.  (Mass.) 
c.  191,  §  9,  a  suit  to  enforce  a  me- 
chanic's lien  must  be  commenced 
within  90  days  after  the  party 
ceased  to  labor  or  furnish  ma- 
terial for  the  building.  Where  a 
petition  filed  December  13th 
stated  the  last  material  was  fur- 
nished September  13th,  but  was 
amended  by  changing  the  date 
to' September  15th,  it  was  too  late 
after  the  amendment  was  allowed, 
and  evidence  introduced  to  sup- 
port it,  to  object  that  the  petition 
was  not  filed  in  time.  Burrell  v. 
Way,  176  Mass.  164,  57  N.  E.  335. 


221 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


540 


lien  to  be  reduced  to  judgment  within  a  certain  time,  but  this 
was  regarded  as  a  harsh  rule  and  it  is  now  sufficient  generally 
to  begin  the  action  within  the  time  limit  and  follow  it  up 
with  ordinary  diligence.^^ 

§  221.  Parties  plaintiff. — The  codes  of  procedure  of  all  the 
states  require  that  the  action  shall  be  brought  in  the  name  of  the 
real  parties  in  interest. ^  But  the  party  should  have  an  inter- 
est in  the  lien  and  not  merely  an  interest  in  the  result  of 
the  action.2  Where  the  interest  is  joint,  as  where  two  or 
more  persons  have  furnished  work  or  materials,  the  general 
rule  is  that  they  may  join  as  plaintiffs.-^  Some  courts  however 
hold  that  if  their  interests  are  not  joint  they  cannot  join  as 
plaintiffs.'*  Other  courts  have  held, — and  it  seems  to  the 
writer  very  properly, — that  where  the  person  is  a  necessary 
party  it  is  immaterial  whether  he  be  a  plaintiff  or  a  defendant 
in  the  action  and  that  all  or  any  such  persons  may  join  as 
plaintiffs.^  A  party  who  does  business  under  an  assumed 
name  can  bring  action  in  that  name.*^     An  undisclosed  princi- 


10  Benton  v.  Wickwire,  54  N.  Y. 
226;  North  Star  Iron  Works  Co. 
V.  Strong,  33  Minn.  1,  21  N.  W. 
740;  Pacific  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Brown,  8 
Wash.  347,  36  Pac.  273. 

1  Joinder  of  several  parties 
claiming  interest,  see  §  204.  See 
Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics' 
Liens   §   262. 

2  Roberts  v.   Gates,   64   III.   374. 

3  Rockwood  V.  Walcott,  3  Allen 
(Mass.)  458. 

4  Roberts  v.  Gates,  64  111.  374. 
Rev.  St.  Ind.  1897,  §  5299,  au- 
thorizing consolidation  of  actions 
by  different  lien  claimants  and 
providing  that  all  lien  claimants 
may  be  made  parties,  does  not 
permit  claimants  having  several 
interests  to  join  as  plaintiffs. 
Northwestern  Loan   &  Inv.  Assn. 


V.  McPherson,  23  Ind.  App.  250, 
54   N.   W.   130. 

3  Freeae  v.  Avery,  57  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  633,  69  N.  Y.  Supp.  150.  "A 
proceeding  to  enforce  a  me- 
chanic's lien  is,  in  effect,  a  suit 
in  chancery,  and  the  rules  that 
govern  causes  in  equity  usually 
control  cases  instituted  under  the 
statutes  to  enforce  a  mechanic's 
lien.  The  general  rule  in  courts 
of  equity,  as  to  parties,  is,  that 
all  persons  materially  interested 
in  the  subject  matter  ought  to  be 
made  parties  to  the  suit,  either  as 
plaintiffs  or  defendants.  Story's 
Equity  Pleading,  sec.  76."  Lom- 
bard V.  Johnson,  76  111.  599. 

c  Where  a  contractor  does  busi- 
ness for  an  undisclosed  principal 
as    "H.,    agent,"    and    files    a   lien 


541 


PARTIES   PLAINTIFF. 


[§221 


pal  may  sue  to  enforce  the  lien  and  all  defenses  are  available 
against  him,  that  would  have  been  available  against  the 
agentJ  It  is  generally  held  that  a  contractor  and  a  subcon- 
tractor have  not  such  a  joint  interest  that  they  can  unite  in  bring- 
ing the  action.^  Where  the  contract  or  a  lien  has  been  as- 
signed and  the  contractor  has  no  further  interest  in  the  mat- 
ter, the  person  holding  the  claim  should  bring  the  action  in 
his  own  name,9  and  he  may  pursue  the  matter  further  and  re- 
cover a  personal  judgment  if  necessary.^*^  Where  the  as- 
signor still  retains  some  interest  in  the  claim  both  of  them 
may  join  in  the  action.^  ^  And  even  if  the  assignor  has  no 
interest  it  will  not  be  error  for  him  to  join.^^  j^  case  the 
claim  is  assigned  while  the  action  is  pending  it  is  proper, 
although    not    necessary,    to    make    the    assignee    a    party. ^^ 


in  that  name,  a  petition  to  fore- 
close is  properly  brought  in  the 
same  name.  Hooker  v.  McGlone, 
42  Conn.  95. 

7  Berry  v.  Gavin,  88  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  1,  34  N.  Y.  Supp.  505. 

8  Barker  v.  Maxwell,  8  Watts 
(Pa.)    478. 

9  Assignment  of  lien,  see  §  167. 
Goff  V.  Papin,  34  Mo.  177;  Halla- 
han  V.  Herbert,  57  N.  Y.  409;  Mc- 
Donald V.  Kelly,  14  R.  I.  335; 
Batesville  Institute  v.  Kauffman, 
18  Wall.  (U.  S.)  151,  21  L.  ed. 
775.  Where  an  owner  agrees  to 
deal  with  the  assignee  of  the  ori- 
ginal contractor  for  the  construc- 
tion of  a  house,  "as  if  he  were  the 
original  contractor,"  such  as- 
signee can,  in  his  own  name,  en- 
force a  lien,  though  he  agreed  to 
pay  the  assignor  a  certain  part 
of  the  profits.  Pensacola  R.  Co. 
V.  Schaffer,  76  Ala.  233. 

10  House  V.  Schulze,  21  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  243,  52  S.  W.  654. 


11  If  not  a  party  plaintiff,  he 
should  be  made  a  defendant. 
Hamilton  v.  Whitson,  5  Kan.  App. 
347,   48   Pac.   462. 

12  Moore  v.  Dugan,  179  Mass. 
153,  60  N.  E.  488. 

13  Phoenix  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Batchen,  6  111.  App.   621. 

Parties  to  action — Who  are  not. 
— Persons  whose  names  are  in- 
serted as  parties  defendant  in  a 
petition,  but  who  are  not  served 
with  notice  and  do  not  appear, 
are  not  parties  to  the  action. 
Vreeland  v.  Ellsworth,  71  Iowa 
347,  32  N.  W.  374. 

Proof. — Under  Colorado  Sta- 
tutes, §  2894,  providing  that  any 
party  claiming  a  lien  may  assign 
the  same  in  writing,  it  is  not  ne- 
cessary, in  a  proceeding  by  the 
assignee  to  enforce  a  mechanic's 
lien,  that  he  should  allege  and 
prove  that  the  assignment  was 
in  writing,  unless  the  fact-  is  de- 
nied. Small  V.  Foley,  8  Colo.  App. 
435,    47    Pac.    64. 


§222] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


542 


§  222.  Parties  defendant  generally. — While  some  of  the 
earlier  statutes  have  caused  the  courts  to  regard  the  action  to 
foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien  as  an  action  at  law/  it  is  not 
generally  so  regarded  and  even  where  it  is  so  regarded,  the 
equitable  rule  prevails  that  all  persons  who  are  interested^ 
in  the  controversy  should  be  made  parties  in  order  that  there 
may  be  an  end  to  litigation.^  Under  this  equitable  rule,  a 
person  is  either  a  "proper  party"  or  a  "necessary  party." 
These  terms  have  been  well  defined  by  an  authoritative  writer 


1  See  §§  11,  196,  197.  See  Dec. 
&  Am.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens 
§    263. 

2  Glos  V.  John  O'Brien  Lumber 
Co.,  183  111.  211,  55  N.  E.  712. 

3  Trustee  and  cestui  que  trust. — 
"In  this  case,  Brown  was  the  sole 
defendant,  while  the  record  of 
deeds  of  the  county  where  the 
premises  were  situated  showed 
that  the  legal  title  was  in  another 
in  trust  for  others,  Brown  having 
only  an  equity  of  redemption. 
This  trustee  and  the  cestuis  que 
trust  should  have  been  made 
parties,  and  the  demurrer 
reached  this  objection."  Lomax 
V.  Dore,  45  111.  379.  All  persons 
whom  the  petition  shows  to  be 
interested  should  be  made  parties 
and  brought  into  court.  Race  v. 
Sullivan,  1  111.  App.  94.  In  the 
case  of  Williams  v.  Bankhead,  19 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  563,  22  L.  ed.  184, 
the  supreme  court,  in  considering 
the  question  of  parties  to  pro- 
ceedings in  chancery,  laid  down 
the  following  general  proposi- 
tions: "The  general  rule  as  to 
parties  in  chancery  is  that  all 
ought  to  be  made  parties  who  are 
intrested    in    the    controversy,    in 


order  that  there  may  be  an  end 
of  litigation.  But  there  are 
qualifications  of  this  rule  growing 
out  of  public  policy  and  the  ne- 
cessities of  particular  cases: 
First,  Where  a  person  will  be 
directly  affected  by  a  decree,  he 
is  an  indispensable  party,  unless 
the  parties  are  too  numerous  to 
be  brought  before  the  court,  when 
the  case  is  subject  to  a  special 
rule.  Secondly,  Where  a  person 
is  interested  in  the  controversy, 
but  will  not  be  directly  affected 
by  a  decree  in  his  absence,  he 
is  not  an  indispensable  party,  but 
should  be  made  a  party  if  pos- 
sible, and  the  court  will  not  pro- 
ceed to  a  decree  without  him  if 
he  can  be  reached.  Thirdly, 
where  he  is  not  interested  in  the 
controversy  between  the  immedi- 
ate litigants,  but  has  an  interest 
in  the  subject-matter  which  may 
be  conveniently  settled  in  the  suit, 
and  thereby  prevent  further  liti- 
gation, he  may  be  a  party  or  not, 
at  the  option  of  the  complainant." 
Harrison,  &c.,  Iron  Co.  v.  Coun- 
cil Bluffs  City  Water-works  Co., 
25  Fed.  170.  Surety  on  bond. 
Vitelli  V.  May,  120  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)  448,  104  N.  Y.  Supp.  1082. 


543 


PARTIES  DEFENDANT. 


[§223 


who  fully  recognizes  the  inaccurate  and  careless  use  to  which 
these  terms  have  been  subjected.^  A  person  is  not  properly 
a  party  to  any  action  until  served.^ 

§  223.  Parties  defendant — Necessary. — All  persons  against 
whom  a  priority  of  lien  is  claimed/  or  where  no  relief  can  be 
granted   to   the   plaintiff  without   such   person   being  made   a 


4  (xeneral    principles.  —  In      all 

equitable  actions,  a  broad  and 
most  important  distinction  must 
be  made  between  two  classes  of 
parties  defendant;  namely,  (1) 
those  who  are  "necessary,"  and 
(2)  those  who  are  "proper."  Ne- 
cessary parties,  when  the  term  is 
accurately  used,  are  those  with- 
out whom  no  decree  at  all  can 
be  effectively  made  determining 
the  principal  issues  in  the  cause. 
Proper  parties  are  those  without 
whom  a  substantial  decree  may 
be  made,  but  not  a  decree  which 
shall  completely  settle  all  the 
questions  which  may  be  involved 
in  the  controversy  and  conclude 
the  rights  of  all  the  persons  who 
have  any  interest  in  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  litigation.  Confu- 
sion has  frequently  arisen  from  a 
neglect  by  text-writers  and  even 
judges,  to  observe  this  plain  dis- 
tinction. Parties  are  sometimes 
spoken  of  as  necessary  when  they 
are  merely  proper.  Thus,  be- 
cause a  decree  cannot  be  render- 
ed, which  shall  determine  the 
rights  of  a  certain  class  of  indi- 
viduals without  making  them  de- 
fendants in  the  action,  they  are 
not  unfrequently  called  necessary 
parties;  or,  in  other  words,  be- 
cause they  must  be  joined  as  de- 
fendants  in  a   particular   suit,   in 


order  that  the  judgment  therein 
may  bind  them,  they  are  denomi- 
nated "necessary"  parties  abso- 
lutely. Such  persons  are  "neces- 
sary" sub  modo — that  is,  they 
must  be  brought  in  if  it  is  ex- 
pected to  conclude  them  by  the 
decree;  but  to  call  them  "neces- 
sary" absolutely  is  to  ignore  the 
familiar  and  fundamental  distinc- 
tion between  the  two  classes  of 
parties  which  has  just  been  men- 
tioned. This  inaccurate  use  of 
language  would  make  every  per- 
son a  necessary  party  who  should 
actually  be  joined  as  a  co-defend- 
ant in  an  equitable  action.  Pome- 
roy's  Remedies  and  Remedial 
Rights,  2  Ed.,  Sec.  329. 

^  See  §  232. 

1  Johnson  v.  Bennett,  6  Colo. 
App.  362,  40  Pac.  847;  Clarke  v. 
Ratcliffe,  7  How.  (Miss.)  162. 
Under  Code  Civ.  Proc.  N.  Y.,  § 
3402,  providing  that  all  lienors 
having  claims  against  the  same 
property  are  necessary  parties  to 
an  action  to  enforce  a  lien,  and 
laws  1897,  c.  418,  §  9,  subd.  7,  pro- 
viding that  the  failure  to  state 
the  name  of  the  true  owner  or 
contractor,  or  a  misdescription  of 
the  true  owner,  shall  not  affect 
the  validity  of  the  lien,  the  fail- 
ure of  a  lienholder,  in  foreclos- 
ing   his    lien,     to     make     another 


223] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


544 


party,  are  necessary  parties.^  Where  a  bond  is  filed  to  dis- 
charge the  lien  on  the  property,  all  persons  who  would  be 
necessary  in  an  action  to  foreclose  a  lien,  must  be  made  parties 
to  an  action  on  the  bond.-^  The  sureties  on  such  bonds  are 
necessary  parties,'*  and  the  courts  have  generally  held  that 
the  contractor  should  likewise  be  made  a  party.^  If  the 
statute  specifically  directs  that  certain  persons  must  be  made 
parties,  the  action  cannot  be  maintained  unless  the  statutory 
provision   is   complied   with.*^      In    suing   a   partnership,   it   is 


lienor,  who  made  a  mistake  in 
naming  the  owner  In  his  lien,  and 
was  not  discovered  by  plaintiff 
until  such  fact  was  pleaded  in 
the  answer,  a  party  to  his  action, 
after  being  discovered,  is  fatal. 
Gaas  V.  Souther,  61  N.  Y.  Supp. 
305,  affirmed,  167  N.  Y.  604,  60  N. 
E.  1111.  See.  subsequent  divisions 
of  this  subdivision. 

2  Maneely  v.  New  York,  119 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  376,  105  N.  Y. 
Supp.  976.  A  material  man's  lien 
cannot  be  enforced  until  the 
claim  secured  is  adjudicated,  and 
hence  parties  to  be  charged  with 
the  debt  are  necessary  parties  to 
a  proceeding  to  enforce  the  lien, 
and,  in  the  absence  of  sei^ice  on 
them,  a  judgment  cannot  be  rend- 
ered authorizing  a  sale  of  the 
property.  Missoula  Mercantile  Co. 
V.  O'Donnell,  24  Mont.  65,  60  Pac. 
594,  991.  In  an  action  to  fore- 
close a  mechanic's  lien,  it  ap- 
peared that  defendant  E.  con- 
tracted to  put  an  electric  light 
plant  in  a  building  owned  by  de- 
fendant D.  Defendant  E.  con- 
tracted with  plaintiffs  to  furnish 
the  engine  and  fixtures,  and 
plaintiffs  procured  the  order  on 
E.    for    the    price    of    the   engine: 


"Please  pay  M.  the  sum  of  $1,250, 
and  charge  the  same  to  our  ac- 
count of  the  D.  engine;  the  paj'- 
ment  to  be  made  when  the  money 
is  due,  as  per  terms  and  condi- 
tions of  our  contract  with  you  for 
the  above  plant."  The  order  was 
an  assignment  of  the  fund  in  E.'s 
hands,  and  M.  should  be  made  a 
defendant,  though  it  had  filed  no 
lien  and  was  a  non-resident. 
Williams  v.  Deutscher  Verein,  14 
N.  Y.   Supp.  368. 

3  Brandt  v.  Bradley,  23  N.  Y. 
Supp.  277.  Persons  jointly  liable. 
Seary  v.  Wegenaar,  104  N.  Y. 
Supp.  1055,  120  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
419. 

■1  Jones  V.  McKenzie,  20  Misc. 
(N.   Y.)    222,   45   N.   Y.   Supp.   412. 

5  Maneely  v.  New  York,  119 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  376,  105  N.  Y. 
Supp.  976;  Warner  v.  A.  H.  Wates 
&  Co.,  lis  Tenn.  548,  102  S.  W. 
92. 

c  O'Brien  v.  Gooding,  194  111. 
466,  62  N.  E.  898;  Rumsey,  &c., 
Co.  V.  Pieffer,  108  Mo.  App.  486, 
83  S.  W.  1027;  Brown  v.  Dan- 
forth,  37  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  321, 
55  N.  Y.  Supp.  825.  Where  prior 
mortgagees  cannot  be  brought  in, 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Bartlett,  57 


545 


PARTIES   DEFENDANT. 


[§224 


held  not  to  be  error  if  one  partner  only  is  made  a  party.''* 
If  the  original  contracting  owner  has  sold  the  property  and 
the  purchaser  has  not  assumed  the  debt,  such  owner  is  held  to 
be  a  necessary  partyJ  Where  a  contract  was  made  with  a 
corporation  that  became  civilly  dead  before  the  proceedings 
were  commenced,  it  is  not  necessary  that  such  corporation 
be  made  a  party.^  So,  a  person  whose  interest  in  the  prop- 
erty is  acquired  while  the  suit  is  pending  is  not  a  necessary 
party. ^  And  if  only  an  equitable  title  is  sought  to  be  fore- 
closed the  owner  of  the  legal  title  is  not  a  necessary  party. ^'^ 
In  no  case  is  a  person  considered  a  necessary  party  where  he 
will  not  be  prejudicially  affected  by  the  decree  that  may  be 
rendered.^  ^ 


§  224.  Parties  defendant — Proper. — It  may  be  laid  down 
as  a  general  principle  that  all  parties  who  have  any  right,  title 
or  interest  in  the  real  estate  should  be  made  parties  defendant 
or  they  will  not  be  affected  by  the  decree  that  the  court  may 
make.^  And  likewise  all  persons  whose  interests  are  such 
that  they  should  be  in  court  in  order  that  a  full  determination 


N.    J.    L.    206,    30    Atl.    583.      All 
lienors   must  be  made.     Maneely 
V.   New  York,   119   App.   Div.    (N. 
Y.)   376,  105  N.  Y.  Supp.  976. 
6a  Putnam  v.  Ross,  55  Mo.  116. 

7  Holland  v.  Cunliff,  96  Mo.  App. 
67,  69  S.  W.  737;  Walter  v.  Bear- 
ing, (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  65  S.  W. 
380. 

8  Jennings  v.  Hinckle,  81  111. 
183. 

0  Cornell  v.  Conine-Eaton  Lum- 
ber Co.,  9  Colo.  App.  225,  47  Pac. 
912.  A  purchaser  pendente  lite 
need  not  be  made  a  party  to  a 
mechanic's  lien  proceedipg. 
Mosier  v.  Flanner-Miller  Lumber 
Co.,  66  111.  App.  630.  A  mortgagee 
who  takes  his   mortgage  pending 


an  action  to  foreclose  a  me- 
chanic's lien  is  not  a  necessary 
party  to  that  action.  Middleton 
V.  Davis-Rankin  Bldg.  &  Mfg.  Co. 
(Ky.),  45  S.  W.  896,  20  Ky.  L. 
263. 

10  Sheppard  v.  Messenger,  107 
Iowa   717,    77   N.    W.    515. 

iiHawkins  v.  Mapes-Reeve 
Const.  Co.,  82  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
72,  81  N.  Y.  Supp.  794. 

1  Krotz  V.  A.  R.  Beck  Lumber 
Co.,  34  Ind.  App.  577,  73  N.  E. 
273;  Nashua  Trust  Co.  v.  W.  S. 
Edwards  Mfg.  Co.,  99  Iowa  109, 
68  N.  W.  587,  61  Am.  St.  226; 
Schaeffer  v.  Lohman,  34  Mo.  68. 
See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit  Me- 
chanics' Liens   §   263. 


35 


224] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN, 


546 


of  all  questions  may  be  had,  are  proper  parties.^  Though  a 
contractor  has  been  discharged  by  an  act  of  bankruptcy 
that  does  not  make  him  an  improper  party  defendant.^  So 
sureties  on  a  bond  given  the  owner  for  his  protection  while 
not  necessary  are  yet  proper  parties.*  Under  the  common 
law  rule  a  wife  could  not  be  sued  unless  her  husband  was 
joined  in  the  action  with  her  and  where  such  common  law 
rule  is  in  force,  the  husband  is  not  only  a  proper,  but,  it  might 
be  said,  a  necessary  party. ^  If  the  wife  has  no  power  to 
contract  it  is  still  proper  to  make  the  husband  a  party  if  he 
made  the  contract  and  his  interest  is  subject  to  sale  to  satisfy 
the  lien."  But  where  the  wife  holds  title  to  the  real  estate, 
the  action  can  not  be  maintained  against  the  husband  alone. '^ 
In  order  to  be  a  party  he  must  have  an  interest  in  the  prop- 
erty.^ And  it  would  be  advisable  in  order  to  cut  ofif  any 
possible  interest  he  might  have  to  make  him  a  party  where 
suit   is   brousrht  to   foreclose   on   the   wife's   real   estate.^      In 


2  Georgia. — Gress  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Rogers,  85  Ga.  587,  11  S.  E.  867. 

Indiana. — Davis,  &c.,  Bldg.  & 
Mfg.  Go.  V.  Vice,  15  Ind.  App.  117, 
43   N.    E.    889. 

New  York. — Williams  v.  Edison 
Electric  Illuminating  Co.,  16  N.  Y. 
Supp.  857,  43  N.  Y.  St.  126;  Wtiis- 
ten  V.  Kellogg,  50  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
409,   100  N.  Y.  Supp.   526. 

Yirginia. — Pairo  v.  Bethell,  75 
Va.  825.  "It  was  not  improper 
to  make  Sherman  a  party; 
and  for  the  same  reason 
that  the  subsequent  incumbrances 
were  joined,  that  he  and  they  be- 
ing interested,  might  have  an  op- 
portunity to  resist  the  lien 
claimed,  and  that  the  plaintiff 
might  the  more  conclusively  es- 
tablish his  lien  upon  the  prop- 
erty, and  against  them  and  their 
respective    interests.       But    it    is 


quite  a  different  thing  to  ask  and 
obtain  a  personal  judgment 
against  him."  Mervin  v.  Sher- 
man, 9  Iowa  331. 

3  Holland  v.  Cunliff,  96  Mo. 
App.   67,  69   S.  W.  737. 

■i  Haberzettle  v.  Bearing  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  80  S.  W.  539;  Maneely 
V.  New  York,  119  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)   376,  105  N.  Y.  Supp.  976. 

"5  Fink  v.  Hanegan,  51  Mo.  280; 
Latshaw   v.    McNess,   50   Mo.    381. 

'5  Kirby  v.  Tead,  13  Mete. 
CMass.)    149. 

7  Roman  v.  Thorn,  83  Ala.  443, 
3   So.   759. 

s  Kirby  v.  Tead,  13  Mete. 
C^Iass.)    149. 

i>  Scott  V.  Goldinhorst,  123  Ind. 
26S,  24  N.  E.  333;  Vorhees  v. 
Beckwell,  10  Ind.  App.  224,  37  N. 
E.  811;  Becker  v.  Price,  1  Lack. 
Leg.  Rec.    (Pa.)   483. 


547 


PARTIES   DEFENDANT — OWNERS. 


225 


suits  brought  to  foreclose  a  lien  on  community  property,  both 
husband  and  wife  are  not  only  proper,  but  may  be  said  to  be 
necessary  parties. ^^  The  wife  should  be  made  a  party  though 
she  merely  holds  an  inchoate  right  of  dower.  The  Illinois 
courts  hold  that  she  is  not,ii  and  the  Wisconsin  courts  that 
she  is  a  proper  party.^^  j^  all  cases  it  is  safer  to  make  both 
husband  and  wife  parties  where  an  action  is  sought  to  fore- 
close a  lien  on  the  property  of  one  of  them. 

§  225.    Parties  defendant — Owners    of    legal    title. — In    all 

cases,  the  person  who  is  the  owner  of  the  legal  title  at  the 
time   of   the   foreclosure    suit   is   a   necessary   party. ^      If   the 


10  Hausmann  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Kempfert,  93  Wis.  587,  67  N.  W. 
1136;  Weston  v.  Weston,  46  Wis. 
130,  49  N.  W.  834;  Northwest 
Bridge  Co.  v.  Tacoma  Shipbuild- 
ing Co.,  36  Wash.  333,  78  Pac. 
996.  But  if  the  husband  held  the 
paper  title  and  it  was  not  known 
that  he  had  a  wife,  it  is  not  ne- 
cessary that  she  be  a  party. 
Washington  Rock  Plaster  Co.  v. 
Johnson,  10  Wash.  445,  39  Pac. 
115.  And  so  if  a  homestead  is 
sought  to  be  used  in  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  lien.  San  Antonio 
Real  Estate  Bldg.  &  Loan  Assn. 
V.  Stewart,  94  Tex.  441,  61  S.  W. 
386,  86  Am.  St.  864.  But  not  if 
the  lien  attached  before  it  was 
used  as  a  homestead.  Watkins  v. 
Spoull,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  427,  28 
S.  W.  356. 

iiShaeffer  v.  Weed,   S   111.   511. 

12  The  wife  of  the  owner  of 
land  upon  which  a  mechanic's 
lien  is  claimed,  is  a  proper  party 
to  an  action  to  enforce  such  lien, 
even  though  she  was  not  a  party 
to   the   building    contract    under 


which  the  lien  is  claimed  and  the 
premises  are  not  a  homestead, 
and  even  though  her  inchoate 
right  of  dower  cannot  be  divested 
in  such  action.  Hausmann  Bros. 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Kempfert,  93  Wis.  587, 
67  N.  W.  1136. 

1  Colorado. — Cornell  v.  Conine- 
Eaton  Lumber  Co.,  9  Colo.  App. 
225,  47  Pac.  912. 

Massachusetts.  —  Peabody  v. 
Eastern  Methodist  Society,  5  Al- 
len  (Mass.)   540. 

Jfebraska. — Green  v.  Sanford, 
34  Neb.  363,  51  N.  W.  967;  Manly 
V.  Downing,  15  Neb.  637,  19  N.  W. 
601. 

]Vew  Jersey. — Babbitt  v.  Con- 
don, 27  N.  J.  L.  154. 

Pennsjlvauia.  —  Hampton  v. 
Broom,  1  Miles   (Pa.)    241. 

Washington. — Wright  v.  Cowie, 
5  Wash.  341,  31  Pac.  878.  In  case 
the  party  is  a  trustee,  there  must 
be  a  proper  designation  or  it  will 
be  presumed  that  he  is  sued  indi- 
vidually. Quinby  v.  Slipper,  7 
Wash.  475,  35  Pac.  116,  38  Am. 
St.    899.      "The    church,    if   incor- 


225] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF   LIEN. 


548 


owners  of  different  properties  jointly  contract  for  a  building-, 
then  all  holding  a  legal  title  are  necessary  parties.^  In  the 
case  of  partnership,  the  partners,  or  where  there  are  joint 
contracting  owners,  all  the  owners  should  be  made  parties,  but 
it  will  not  be  fatal  to  the  action  if  they  are  not  made  parties. 
The  only  effect  is  that  the  person  not  made  a  party  will  not 
be  bound,-^  for  it  is  a  general  principle  that  interested  parties 
are  not  bound  by  decrees  to  which  they  are  not  parties."* 
The  owner  at  the  time  suit  is  brought  and  not  the  one  acquir- 
ing an  interest  afterwards  is  the  necessary  party. ^  Where  the 
owner  of  the  property  upon  which  the  lien  has  attached  sells 
it  he  is  not  a  necessary  party,  although  he  may  be  a  proper 
party.^     The  decree  is  a  nullity  as  to  a  person  not  made  a 


porated,  should  have  been  sued 
by  its  corporate  name.  If  not, 
the  individual  members  of  the 
church  might  have  been  sued  col- 
lectively, or  under  section  1680 
of  the  Code  of  1851,  if  they  were 
too  numerous  and  it  was  imprac- 
ticable to  bring  them  all  before 
the  court,  then  one  or  more  could 
have  been  sued,  who  could  have 
defended  for  the  whole,  provided 
Tracy  acted  as  their  agent.  In 
either  event,  whether  against  the 
corporation  as  such,  or  against 
the  individual  members  of  the 
church,  the  Catholic  Bishop  hold- 
ing the  legal  title  should  also 
have  been  made  a  party."  Keller 
V.  Tracy,  11  lov/a  530.  The 
plaintiff  v/as  excused  for  not 
making  him  a  party  at  the  time 
of  the  commencement  of  the  ac- 
tion, as  a  search  against  the 
premises  did  not  disclose  the 
lien.  There  was  no  excuse,  how- 
ever, for  not  bringing  him  in  af- 
ter his  lien  was  made  to  appear. 


Gass  V.  Souther,  46  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)  256,  61  N.  Y.  Supp.  305. 

2  Carter  Lumber  Co.  v.  Simp- 
son, 83  Tex.  370,  18  S.  W.  812; 
J.  A.  Treat  Lumber  Co.  v.  Warner. 
60  Wis.  183,  18  N.  W.  747. 

SFowler  v.  Bailley,  14  Wis.  125; 
Johnson  v.  Weinstock,  31  La.  Ann. 
698. 

^  White  V.  Chaffin,  32  Ark.  59. 
Where  one  in  actual  possession 
under  an  unrecorded  deed  at  the 
beginning  of  an  action  to  enforce 
a  mechanic's  lien  is  not  made  a 
party  thereto,  he  is  not  affected 
by  the  decree  rendered  therein. 
Monroe  v.  Hanson,  47  Neb.  30,  66 
N.  W.  12. 

•^  McCoy  V.  Quick,  30  Wis.  521. 

'^  Connecticut. — Rose  v.  Persse, 
&c..   Paper  Works,  29   Conn.   256. 

Delaware. — Carswell  v.  Patzo- 
wski,  4  Penne.  (Del.)  403,  55  Atl 
342. 

Indiana,  —  Kellenberger  v. 
Boyer,  37  Ind.  188;  Marvin  v. 
Taylor,    27    Ind.    73;     Holland    v. 


549 


PARTIES EXECUTORS VENDEES. 


[§225 


party.^  The  omission  to  make  a  subsequent  purchaser  a 
party  may  be  taken  advantage  of  by  the  person  against  whom 
it  originally  accrued. ^  A  better  way  would  be  to  make  both 
the  original  owner  and  subsequent  purchasers  parties.^*^  How- 
ever if  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  original  owner  has 
some  interest,  it  would  not  be  error  to  omit  making  him  a 
party. ^1 

§  226.  Parties  defendant — Fraudulent  vendees. — A  person 
to  whom  the  property  has  been  fraudulently  conveyed  should 
be  made  a  party. ^^  gut;  it  would  not  be  necessary  so  to  do 
if  the  action  is  commenced  before  the  conveyance. ^^ 

§  227.  Parties  defendant — Executors  and  administrators — 
Effect  of  failure  to  join  proper  parties. — Where  the  owner 
dies  after  having  made  the  contract  his  legal  heirs  should  be 


,Jones,  9  Ind.  495;  Vorhees  v. 
Beckwell,  10  Ind.  App.  224,  37  N. 
E.  811.  Not  necessary,  but  proper 
party.  Schaeffer  v.  Lohman,  34 
Mo.  68;  Pickens  v.  Polk,  42  Neb. 
267,  60  N.  W.  566.  Under  a  pe- 
culiar statute,  where  judgment  is 
first  required  and  then  a  suit  is 
brought  to  enforce  the  judgment, 
such  owner  is  a  necessary  party 
in  the  first  suit,  and  the  present 
owner  is  not,  but  in  second  suit 
the  present  owner  is  a  necessary 
party.  Colley  v.  Doubgty,  62  Me. 
501. 

8  Marvin  v.  Taylor,  27  Ind.  73. 
But  the  law  repudiates  the  idea 
of  condemning  the  property  of 
one  man  to  pay  the  debt  of  an- 
other, without  giving  him  an  op- 
portunity in  court,  upon  due  ser- 
vice of  process,  of  showing  that 
the  claim  ought  not  to  be  asserted 
against  his  property.  Clark  v. 
Brown,  25  Mo.  559. 


9  Clark  V.  Brown,  25  Mo.  559. 
There  may  be  cases  where  the 
subsequent  purchaser  is  an  indis- 
pensable party,  as  where  there 
were  12  houses  built  and  three 
sold.  Ortwine  v.  Caskey,  43  Md. 
134. 

10  Edwards  v.  Derrickson,  28 
N.    J.    L.    39. 

11  Cullers  V.  First  Nat.  Bank 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  29  S.  W.  72; 
Harrington  v.  Miller,  4  Wash.  808, 
31  Pac.  325.  Leashold  estates. 
Original  lessee  not  necessary 
party.  Southard  v.  Moss,  2  Misc. 
(N.   Y.)    121,   20   N.   Y.   Supp.   848. 

12  Lindley  v.  Cross,  31  Ind.  106, 
99  Am.  Dec.  610;  Meehan  v.  Wil- 
liams, 36  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  73,  2 
Daly    (N.  Y.)    367. 

13  Bierschenk  v.  King,  38  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  360,  56  N.  Y.  Supp. 
696. 


§227] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF   LIEN. 


550 


made  parties  defendant.^  If  there  is  an  administration  on 
his  estate  tlie  administrator-  or  executor  is  a  proper  party 
defendant.^  The  courts  are  not  in  accord  upon  the  question 
of  whether  an  executor  is  a  necessary  party  if  title  is  not  in 
him,  but  all  agree  that  he  is  a  proper  party.^  And  some 
courts  lay  down  the  rule,  that,  unless  an  administrator  bring- 
ing an  action  to  sell  real  estate,  must  make  the  heirs  parties, 
then  the  heirs  are  not  necessary  parties  in  foreclosure  of  a 
lien.^  Of  course,  if  the  debtor  had  no  interest  when  he  died, 
neither  the  heir,  administrator  or  executor  is  a  necessary 
party,  although  he  may  sometimes  be  a  proper  party .^  As 
a  general   rule,   the   mere   failure  to  join  proper  parties  will 


1  Simonds  v.  Biiford,  18  Ind. 
176.  In  some  states  by  express 
provision,  the  heirs  need  not  be 
made  a  party.  Welch  v.  McGrath, 
59  Iowa  519,  10  N.  W.  810,  13  N. 
W.  638.  In  a  proceeding  for  a 
mechanic's  lien,  the  administra- 
tor of  the  defendant's  estate  may 
properly  be  made  a  party,  and  if 
the  plaintiff  takes  a  judgment 
without  making  the  heirs  a  party, 
he  does  it  at  his  peril.  Mix  v.  Ely, 
2  G.  Greene    (Iowa)    513. 

2  Hughes  V.  Torgerson,  96  Ala. 
346,  11  So.  209,  38  Am.  St.  105,  16 
L.  R.  A.  600n;  Welch  v.  McGrath, 
59  Iowa  519,  10  N.  W.  810,  13  N. 
W.  638;  Guerrant  v.  Dawson,  34 
Miss.  149.  The  jury  has  nothing 
tO'  do  with  the  question  as  to  who 
are  proper  parties.  Van  Billiard 
V.  Nace,  1  Grant  Gas.    (Pa.)    233. 

3  Robins  v.  Bunn,  34  N.  J.  L. 
322. 

4  Crystal  v.  Flannelly,  2  E.  D. 
Smith   (N.  Y.)    583. 

•5  "It  is  held  to  be  unnecessary 
to  make  the  heirs  at  law  parties 
to  a  proceeding  to  sell  real  estate 


of  decedent  for  the  purpose  of 
paying  his  debts,  for  the  reason 
that  the  proceedings  and  sale  are 
sufficient  notice  to  them.  We  have 
the  same  character  of  notice  in 
the  proceedings  and  sale  on  a 
mechanic's  lien,  and  if  the  notice 
is  sufficient  in  one  case,  why  not 
in  the  other?"  Reece  v.  Haj^- 
maker,  25  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  (N.  S.) 
(Pa.)   74. 

^  Security  Mortgage  &  Trust 
Co.  V.  Caruthers,  11  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
430,  32  S.  W.  837.  We  are  there- 
fore of  the  opinion  that,  where 
the  debtor  who  was  the  owner 
has  ceased  to  have  an  interest  in 
the  estate,  and  has  deceased,  and 
his  estate  has  been  settled,  and 
the  time  for  presenting  claims  has 
passed  and  there  were  no  assets 
for  his  heirs,  his  administrator  is 
not  a  necessary  party,  even 
though  he  is  a  proper  party,  to 
proceedings  to  enforce  a  me- 
chanic's lien.  Holmes  v.  Hum- 
phreys, 187  Mass.  513,  73  N.  E. 
668. 


551 


PARTIES MORTGAGEES    AND    INCUMBRANCERS. 


[§228 


not  prevent  the  court  from  rendering  a  decree,  which  however, 
is  only  binding  on  those  properly  in  courtJ  However,  if  the 
statute  requires  that  a  certain  person  be  made  a  party,  this 
matter  then  becomes  jurisdictional  and  no  valid  decree  can  be 
rendered  without  it.^ 

§  228.    Parties  defendant — Mortgagees  and  incumbrancers. — 

Where  it  is  sought  to  foreclose  a  lien  on  premises  incumbered 
by  mortgages,^  and  mortgages  in  the  nature  of  trust 
deeds,  both  beneficiary  and  the  trustee  are  necessary  defend- 
ants.2  Even  if  the  debt  secured  by  the  mortgage  or  trust 
deed  is  not  yet  due  they  should  be  made  parties,^  so  that  all 


7  Tracy  v.  Kerr,  47  Kan.  656, 
28  Pac.  707;  Laviolette  v.  Red- 
ding, 4  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  81;  Horst- 
kotte  V.  Menier,  50  Mo.  158;  Car- 
ney V.  La  Crosse,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  15 
Wis.    503. 

8  Johnson-Frazier  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Schuler,  49  Mo.  App.  90;  Baker 
V.  Pagaud,  26  La.  Ann.  220. 

1  Finlayson  v.  Crooks,  47  Minn. 
74,  49  N.  W.  398,  645;  Farmers' 
Bank  v.  Watson,  39  W.  Va.  342, 
19  S.  E.  413. 

2  Colorado. — McClair  v.  Hud- 
dart,  6  Colo.  App.  493,  41  Pac. 
832. 

Illinois. — Bennitt  v.  Wilmington 
Star  Man.  Co.,  119  111.  9,  7  N.  E. 
498;  Clark  v.  Manning,  95  111. 
580;  Columbia  Bldg.  &  Loan  Assn. 
V.  Taylor,  25  111.  App.  429;  Phoe- 
nix Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Batchen, 
6  111.  App.  621.  IMortgagee  is  not 
an  owner.  Tompkins  v.  Horton, 
10  C.  E.  Green  (N.  J.  Eq.)  284. 
The  general  equity  rule  is  that  all 
persons  interested  in  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  litigation  must  be 
made  parties  in  order  that  the  de- 
cree may  affect  their  rights,  and 


this  rule  requires  that  both  the 
trustees  and  cestui  que  trust  be 
made  parties  in  suits  respecting 
the  trust  property.  McGraw  v. 
Bayard,  96  111.  146. 

Where  trustee  uot  necessary 
party. — A  subcontractor  notified 
defendant  of  the  amount  due  him 
from  the  contractor  for  materials 
furnished  for  a  building  which 
the  contractor  was  erecting  for 
defendant.  The  subcontractor  de- 
manded payment  from  both  de- 
fendant and  the  contractor,  but 
both  refused  payment.  The  day 
before  the  contractor  filed  his 
lien  against  the  building  the  de- 
fendant gave  the  contractor  a 
note  for  a  large  sum  owing  the 
latter,  and  secured  it  by  a  deed 
of  trust  of  all  of  defendant's 
property.  The  trustee  need  not 
be  made  a  party  to  the  action  to 
enforce  the  lien.  Lookout  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Mansion  Hotel,  &c.,  R. 
Co.,   109  N.  Car.   658,   14  S.  E.  35. 

3  North  Presbyterian  Church  v. 
Jevne,  32  111.  214,  83  Am.  Dec. 
261. 


§  228]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  552 

questions  in  reference  to  the  title  may  be  settled.^  If  such 
pre-existing  mortgage  claimants  should  not  be  made  parties, 
their  claims  will  retain  the  same  degree  of  priority  that 
existed  before  the  action  was  brought.^  If  a  mortgage  secures 
several  notes  and  the  record  does  not  disclose  the  ownership, 
then  the  holders  of  such  notes  are  not  necessary  parties.^ 
Omission  to  make  a  mortgagee  of  part  of  the  property  affected 
by  the  lien  a  party  defendant  will  not  operate  to  release  other 
parts  of  the  property  covered  by  the  mortgage  even  though 
sufficient  property  remains  to  secure  the  mortgaged  If  the 
holder  of  the  mortgage  should  die,  his  executor  or  administra- 
tor is  the  proper  party  to  collect  the  same,  and  he  therefore 
becomes  a  necessary  party  in  an  action  to  foreclose  a  lien 
on  the  property  covered  by  the  mortgage.®  As  a  general  rule, 
it  may  be  said  that  lienors  and  incumbrancers,  where  the 
person  seeking  the  foreclosure  of  a  lien  desires  no  priority 
over  them,  are  not  necessary  parties.^  But  it  would  be  better 
practice  to  make  them  parties. ^°.  Of  course,  if  not  made 
parties  their  rights  remain  as  they  are,^^  and  they  will  not 
be  affected  or  precluded  by  a  decree  ;i-  as  to  them,  a  decree 

4Bassett   v.    Menage,    52    Minn.  Kan.  377,  18  Pac.  230;   Kenney  v. 

121,   53    N.    W.    1064.  Apgar,  93   N.  Y.   539. 

5  Williams  v.  Chapman,  17  111.  it)  Subsequent  incumbrancers 
423,  65  Am.  Dec.  669;  Hicks  v.  are  also  regarded  as  necessary 
Scofield,  121  Mo.  381,  25  S.  AV.  parties  because  a  perfect  title 
755;  Russell  v.  Grant,  122  Mo.  could  not  be  given  under  the  de- 
161,  26  S.  W.  958,  43  Am.  St.  563.  cree  and  sale;  but  the  presence 
An  action  is  not  pending  until  of  such  incumbrancrs  is  not  in- 
the  party  is  served.  Hokanson  dispensable  to  the  decree  of  fore- 
V.  Gunderson,  54  Minn.  4'99,  56  closure.  It  may  be  given  and 
N.  W.  172,  40  Am.  St.  354.  rendered  without  them,  but  such 

6  Landau  v.  Cottrill,  159  Mo.  as  are  not  made  parties  are  not 
308,  60  S.  W.  64;  Portones  v.  cut  off  or  bound  by  the  decree. 
Badenoch,  132  111.  377,  23  N.  E.  Osborn  v.  Lxigus,  28  Ore.  302,  37 
349.  Pac.  456,  38  Pac.  190,  42  Pac.  997. 

■<■  Badger  Lumber  Co.  v.  Ballen-  n  Whitney   v.    Higgins,   10   Cal. 

tine,  54  Mo.  App.  172.  547,  70  Am.   Dec.   748;    McKim  v. 

8  Shields  v.  Keys,  24  Iowa  298.  Mason,  3  Md.  Ch.  186. 

oSharon  Town  Co.  v.  Morris,  39  12  Clark  v.   Moore,   64   111.    273; 


553 


PARTIES   DEFENDANT — CONTRACTOR. 


[§229 


will  be  legal,  but  not  binding  upon  their  rights. ^^  While 
the  holder  of  the  lien  or  an  incumbrance  attaching  after  the 
commencement  of  a  suit  might  not  be  a  necessary  party  un- 
less the  lien  was  one  in  its  nature  afifecting  the  mechanic's  lien, 
it  will  be  very  proper  for  the  court  to  let  him  come  in  and  set 
up  his  claim.i'*  And  so  a  subsequent  purchaser  is  held  to  be 
a  proper  but  not  necessary  party. ^^ 

§  229.  Parties  defendant — Contractor. — As  a  general 
rule,  the  subcontractor's  rights  not  only  rest  on  those  be- 
tween the  contractor  and  the  owner,  but  the  state  of  account  be- 
tween the  subcontractor  and  the  contractor  is  such  that  it  is 
necessary  to  make  the  contractor  a  party  to  the  action.^  But 
even  if  he  were  not  a  necessary  party  he  is  certainly  a  very 


McLagan  v.  Brown,  11  111.  519. 
Holders  of  a  vendor's  lien  and  a 
mortgage  on  certain  premises  are 
not  necessary  or  indispensable 
parties  to  a  suit  to  enforce  a  me- 
chanic's lien  against  property  on 
the  premises,  where  complainant 
does  not  seek  priority  over  such 
liens,  as  they  cannot  be  preju- 
diced by  the  suit.  Case  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Smith,  40  Fed.  339,  5  L.  R.  A. 
231. 

13  Evans  v.  Tripp,  35  Iowa  371. 

14  Western  Brass  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Boyce,  74  Mo.  App.  343,  ^uydam 
V.  Holden,  11  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  (N. 
Y.)    329. 

15  Kaylor  v.  O'Connor,  1  E.  D. 
SmWh  (N.  Y.)  672;  Rice  v.  Hall, 
41  Wis.  453;  McCoy  v.  Quick,  30 
Wis.  521;  Hall  v.  Hinckley,  32 
Wis.  362;  Harrington  v.  Latta,  23 
Neb.   84,  36  N.  W.   364. 

Pendini?  suit. — In  Stout  v.  Lye, 
103  U.  S.  66,  26  L.  ed.  428,  it  was 
held,  Chief  Justice  Waite  writing 
the  opinion  of  the  court,  that  the 


procuring  of  a  judgment  during 
the  pendency  of  a  suit  to  fore- 
close a  mortgage  was  in  legal 
effect  no  more  and  no  less  than 
an  incumbrance  of  the  equity  of 
redemption  by  the  mortgagor,  un- 
der the  operation  of  judicial  pro- 
ceedings which  had  been  insti- 
tuted against  him  to  enforce  the 
payment  of  a  debt  he  owed  and 
that  as  such  incumbrance  was 
created  pendente  lite,  the  judg- 
ment creditor  was  bound  by  the 
foreclosure  proceedings,  although 
not  a  party  to  the  action.  See 
also,  Comer  v.  Dodson,  22  Ohio 
St.  615. 

1  California. — Wood  v.  Oakland, 
&c..  Rapid  Transit  Co.,  107  Cal. 
500,   40   Pac.   806. 

Colorado.  —  Estey  v.  Hallack, 
fee.  Lumber  Co.,  4  Colo.  App.  165, 
34  Pac.  1113;  Davis  v.  John  Mouat 
Lumber  Co.,  2  Colo.  App.  381,  31 
Pac.  187. 

Georgia. — Lombard  v.  Trustees 
of    Young    Men's    Library    Assn. 


§  229]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  554 

proper  party.^     However   if  the   contractor   has   assigned  all 


Fund,  73  Ga.  322.  Unaccepted  or- 
der on  owner.  "Wheelock  v.  Hull, 
124  Iowa  752,  100  N.  W.  863. 

Michigan. — Kerns  v.  Flynn,  51 
Mich.  573,  17  N.  W.  62. 

Missouri. — T.  A.  Miller  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Oliver,  65  Mo.  App.  435; 
Bombeck  v.  Devorss,  19  Mo.  App. 
38.  WTiere  the  statute  required 
the  action  to  be  against  "builder 
and  owner,"  it  was  improper  to 
make  the  administrator  of  the 
builder  a  party  under  the  former 
New  Jersey  statute.  Ayres  v.  Re- 
vere, 25  N.  J.  L.  474. 

Jfew  Jersey.  —  Sinnickson  v. 
Lynch,  25   N.  J.   L.   317. 

Nortli  Carolina. — Lookout  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Mansion  Hotel,  &c., 
R.  Co.,  109  N.  Car.  658,  14  S.  E. 
35. 

PennsylTania.  —  Barnes  v. 
Wright,  2  Whart.    (Pa.)    193. 

Texas. — Thomas  v.  Ownby,  1 
Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.   §  1212. 

Practice. — In  an  action  by  a 
subcontractor  to  enforce  a  lien, 
the  original  contractor  is  a  ne- 
cessary party.  If  he  be  named  as 
a  defendant  in  the  title  of  the 
action,  but  not  brought  in  as  a 
party  by  service  of  the  summons 
on  him,  the  proper  practice  is 
for  the  court,  upon  the  suggestion 
of  the  fact,  to  continue  the  action 
or  delay  the  trial  until  he  be 
brought  in  as  a  party.  If  the 
plaintiff  has  unreasonably  de- 
layed to  make  such  service,  a  mo- 
tion may  be  made  to  dismiss  the 
action.  Northwestern  Cement  & 
Concrete   Pav.  Co.  v.   Norwegian- 


Danish,  fee,  Seminary,  43  Minn. 
449,  45  N.  W.  868. 

Indispensable  party.  —  Laws, 
Colo.  1883,  p.  23,  §  25  (Mills'  Ann. 
St.  §  2891),  relating  to  mechanics' 
liens,  provides  that  the  court  may 
proceed  to  hear  and  determine 
said  liens  and  claims;  that  judg- 
ment shall  be  rendered  according 
to  the  rights  of  the  parties;  that 
the  various  rights  of  all  the  lien 
claimants  and  other  parties  in 
any  such  action  shall  be  deter- 
mined and  incorporated  in  one 
judgment  or  decree;  that  each 
party  who  shall  establish  his 
claim  shall  have  a  judgment 
against  the  party  personally  liable 
to  him  for  the  full  amount  of 
his  claim  so  established,  and 
shall  have  a  lien  established  in 
said  decree  upon  the  property 
to  which  his  lien  shall  have  at- 
tached to  the  extent  hereinbefore 
stated.  Held,  that  the  contractor 
was  an  indispensable  party  to  an 
action  by  a  material  man  to  es- 
tablish and  foreclose  a  mechanic's 
lien  against  the  owner,  since  the 
right  to  a  lien  is  dependent. upon 
the  indebtedness  of  the  contrac- 
tor. Sayre-Newton  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Park,  4  Colo.  App.  482,  36  Pac. 
445. 

Xiillity  if  not  party. — If  such  a 
contractor  is  not  made  a  party, 
this  decree  is  a  nullity  as  to  him, 
and,  after  completing  his  contract 
and  complying  with  the  statute, 
he  may  bring  suit  to  enforce  his 
lien.  Wakefield  v.  Van  Dorn,  53 
Neb.  23,  73  N.  W.  226. 

-  Trammell  v.  Hudmon,  78  Ala. 


555 


DEFENDANTS CONTRACTORS. 


[§229 


his  interests  or  abandoned  the  contract  so  that  he  has  no 
possible  interest  in  the  litigation,  then  it  is  not  necessary  to 
make  him  a  party .^  Some  courts  have  held  that  the  fact  that 
the  owner  allowed  the  trial  to  proceed  without  urging  the 
necessity  of  making  the  contractor  a  party  will  not  waive 
such  irregularity.'*  The  fact  that  the  contractor  has  absconded 
will  not  excuse  a  failure  to  make  him  a  party  since  service  of 
process  can  be  had  on  him  by  publication.^  Under  statutes 
that  make  the  owner  directly  responsible  to  subcontractors 
when  their  rights  are  fixed  as  required  by  statute,  the  con- 
tractor is  not  a  necessary  party. "^  All  persons  personally  liable 
where  personal  judgment  is  sought  are  proper  parties  defend- 
ant.''' But  if  the  liability  is  not  joint  they  are  not  all  neces- 
sary parties,^  and  generally,  it  is  sufficient  if  one  of  several 


222;  Royal  v.  McPhall,  97  Ga. 
457,  25  S.  E.  512;  Walkenhorst 
V.  Coste,  33  Mo.  401;  Slade  v. 
Amarillo  Lumber  Co.  (Xex.  Civ. 
App.),  93  S.  W.  475. 

3  Green  v.  Clifford,  94  Cal.  49, 
29  Pac.  331.  To  a  subcontractor. 
Kloeppinger  v.  Grasser,  25  Ohio 
C.  C.  90. 

4  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  David- 
son, 21  Colo.  93,  39  Pac.  1095; 
Estey  V.  Hallack,  &c.,  Lumber 
Co.,  4  Colo.  App.  165,  34  Pac.  1113.  " 

5  Castleberry  v.  Johnston,  92 
Ga.   499,   17   S.   E.   772. 

6  Georgia. — Wilder's  Sons  Co.  v. 
Walker,  98  Ga.  508,  25  S.  E.  571. 

Indiana. — Hubbard  v.  Moore, 
132  Ind.  178,  31  N.  E.  534;  Craw- 
fordsville  v.  Barr,  65  Ind.  367; 
Leeper  v.  Meyers,  10  Ind.  App. 
314,  37  N.  E.  1070. 

Oregon.  —  Hand  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Marks,  36  Ore.  523,  52  Pac.  512, 
53  Pac.  1072,  59  Pac.  549.     Under 


the  Ohio  law,  where  the  sub- 
contractor does  not  file  his  claim 
with  the  recorder,  and  thus  notify 
the  contractor  of  his  claim,  he 
should  make  the  contractor  a 
party  in  his  action  against  the 
owner.  Geller  v.  Puchta,  1  Ohio 
C.  C.  30,  1  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  18. 
Under  statutes  that  make  the 
contractor  the  owner's  agent,  he 
is  not  an  indispensable  party,  but 
if  not  made  a  party  his  rights 
remain.  Osborn  v.  Logus,  28  Ore. 
302,  37  Pac.  456,  38  Pac.  190,  42 
Pac.  997. 

7  McDonald  v.  Backus,  45  Cal. 
262.  Where  the  principal  con- 
tractors divided  the  work,  one 
taking  the  carpenter  and  the 
other  the  stone  work,  both  should 
have  been  made  parties,  on  suit 
of  a  subcontractor.  Harbeck  v. 
Southwell,  18   Wis.   418. 

8  Hassett  v.  Rust,  64  Mo.  325 ; 
Baldinger  v.  Levine,  83  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)   130,  82  N.  Y.  Supp.  483. 


§  230]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN,  556 

joint  contractors  be  a  party,  where  a  subcontractor  forecloses 
his  lien  under  such  joint  contract.^  Where  two  or  more  con- 
tractors furnish  materials  on  the  same  building  under  separate 
contracts  and  one  forecloses  he  should  make  the  others 
parties. ^"^  One  who  purchases  as  an  agent  for  another  is 
neither  a  proper  nor  a  necessary  party.^^  The  better  rule  is, — 
and  some  statutes  so  require, — that  all  persons  claiming  me- 
chanics' liens  are  proper  if  not  necessary  parties  in  the  fore- 
closure of  the  lien  of  one  of  them  on  the  premises. ^^  Of  course, 
if  they  have  been  paid  ofif  and  have  no  interest,  the  record 
should  not  be  incumbered  by  bringing  them  in  as  parties. ^^ 

§  230.    Party  by  addition,  substitution  or  intervention. — The 

matter  of  bringing  the  person  in  as  a  party  by  way  of  ad- 
dition, substitution  or  intervention  is  a  matter  of  practice 
which  necessarily  must  rest  largely  upon  the  law  and  practice 
of  the  forum  in  which  the  lien  action  is  brought.  As  a  general 
rule,  however,  it  may  be  said  that  the  court  has  power  to  add 
other  parties  if  their  presence  is  necessary  to  mete  out 
justice  between  all  interested  parties. ^  But  the  plaintiff  cannot 
bring  in,  or  the  court  add  parties  unless  the  plaintiff  has  a 
cause  of  action  against  the  defendant  or  some  person  originally 
made  a   defendant.^      Neither  can   a  petition   be   so  amended 

9  Steinmann  v.  Strimple,  29  Mo.  699.  It  is  not  fatal  to  a  motion 
App.  478;  Poster  v.  Wulfing,  20  to  add  a  party  as  defendant,  that 
Mo.  App.   85.  the  relief  asked  is  in  the  alterna- 

10  "Wakefield  v.  Van  Dorn,  53  tive.  Williams  v.  Edison  Electric 
Neb.   23,  73  N.  W.  226.  Illuminating  Co.,   16   N.  Y.   Supp. 

11  Whitmeyer  v.  Dart,  29  Mo.  857.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit  Me- 
App.    565.  chanics'   Liens    §   264. 

12  Mehrle  v.  Dunne,  75  111.  239.  2  Spence    v.    Griswold,    23    Abb. 

13  Meeks  v.   Sims,  84  111.  422.  N.   Cas.    239,    7    N.   Y.    Supp.    145. 
1  Snodgrass  v.  Holland,  6  Colo.      Where  original  statement  did  not 

596;    Williams  v.  Edison  Electric  give    name    of    real    owner,    real 

Illuminating  Co.,   16   N.   Y.   Supp.  owner    could    not    afterwards    be 

857;   Foster  v.  Skidmore,  1  E.  D.  substituted.     Cook  v.   Gallatin  R. 

Smith    (N.    Y.)     719;    Sullivan    v.  Co.,  28  Mont.   340,  72   Pac.   678. 
Decker,    1    E.    D.    Smith    (N.    Y.) 


557  PARTY    BY    SUBSTITUTION    OR    INTERVENTION.  [§231 

as  to  bring  in  a  new  party,  if  the  right  to  the  Hen  has  ex- 
pired by  limitation,^  or  the  matter  has  already  been  determined 
and  the  party  is  not  a  necessary  one.'*  Since,  however,  this 
is  strictly  the  remedial  part  of  the  statute,  parties  are  generally 
allowed  to  come  in  at  any  time  if  no  one  is  prejudiced  thereby,^ 
and  this  may  be  done  even  as  late  as  the  time  of  trial."  Al- 
though the  case  may  be  one  for  a  law  court,  equitable  rules  as 
to  addition  or  substitution  of  parties  will  prevail.'^  As  long 
as  a  party  may  have  some  interest  in  the  result  of  the  action, 
he  cannot  be  dismissed  therefrom  and  another  substituted  for 
him.8  Where  an  action  has  been  duly  commenced  and  the 
defendant  dies  or  becomes  insane,  his  duly  appointed  repre- 
sentatives should  be  substituted  for  him.^ 

§  231.  Party — Right  of  intervention. — As  said  in  the  pre- 
vious section,  the  right  of  intervention  varies  as  the  procedure 
may  vary  in  the  different  courts  where  the  action  is  brought. ^ 
Generally  on  the  theory  that  all  liens  or  rights  attaching  on 
certain  property  should  be  determined  without  delay  and  at 
as  little  expense  as  is  consistent  with  justice,  all  parties  hav- 
ing a  lien  on  the  property,  or  on  the  fund,  or  whose  rights  will 
in  some  way  be  adjudicated,  are  proper  parties  and  if  not  made 
parties  may  on  their  own  motion  or  motion  of  the  court,  or  of 
an  interested  party  be  brought  into  the  action  the  same  as 

3  Rumsey,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Pieffer,  enburg  v.  Werner,  6  iMo.  App.  292. 
108  Mo.  App.  486,  83   S.  W.  1027.  c  Wheaton    v.    Berg,     50     Minn. 

4  Mulligan  v.  Vreeland,  88  Hun      525,  52  N.  W.  926. 

(N.  Y.)  183,  34  N.  Y.  Supp.  990.  7  Gress  Lumber  Co.   v.   Rogers, 

5  Elwell    V.    Morrow,     28     Utah      85  Ga.  587,  11  S.  E.  867. 

278,   78    Pac.    605.     The   statutory  s  Busse    v.    Voss,    9    Ohio    Dec. 

provision   that  no   delay   shall   be  (Re.)     441,     13     Wkly.     L.     Bull. 

granted    at   the    second    term    for  (Ohio)    542. 

the    purpose    of    bringing    in    de-  9  Pratt   v.    Seavey,    41    Me.    370, 

fendants  not  served,  does  not  ap-  See   §  227. 

ply     to     mechanic's     lien     cases,  i  See  Pomeroy's  Rights  &  Reme- 

where  a  dismissal  would  be  a  bar  dies,  2d  Ed.,   §  411. 

to  a  recovery  on  the  lien.     Schul- 


§231] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF   LIEN. 


558 


if  they  were  original  parties  to  the  suit.-  A  lienor  must  claim 
his  right  within  the  proper  time  limit.  If  he  fails  so  to  do  he 
loses  his  claim  but  if  his  interest  was  such  that  he  ought  to 
have  been  made  a  party  in  order  to  protect  his  rights  he 
can  intervene  or  otherwise  be  brought  into  the  action. ^  Under 
the  practice  of  some  courts,  subsequent  incumbrancers  may 
have  their  rights  disposed  of  without  being  made  parties  to 
the  action.-*  While  a  subsequent  mortgagee  may  have  no 
absolute  right  to  intervene,^  yet  if  application  is  made  at  the 
proper  time,  he  will  be  allowed  to  do  so.^     All  persons  claim- 


2  Kling  V.  Railway  Const.  Co., 
4  Mo.  App.  574;  Chamberlain  v. 
O'Connor,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.) 
665;  Noyes  v.  Fritz,  2  Miles  (Pa.) 
162;  Powell  v.  Nolan,  27  Wash. 
318,  67  Pac.  712,  68  Pac.  389. 
Come  in  on  distribution.  DeGive 
V.  Meador,  51  Ga.  160.  ]\Iust  come 
in  before  trial.  Wilson  v.  Merry- 
man,  48  Md.  328.  Not  allowed  on 
money  demand,  unless  plaintiff 
consents.  Cook  v.  Gallatin  R.  Co., 
28  Mont.  340,  72  Pac.  678.  Present 
owner  of  property.  Shannon  v. 
McDuffee,  2  Pa.  Dist.  230.  One 
who  cannot  show  title  to  the 
realty  to  be  in  himself  will  not 
be  made  a  party  defendant.  Pace 
V.  Yost,  10  Kulp  (Pa.)  538.  A 
party  merely  interested  in  the 
proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the 
property  has  no  standing  to 
intervene  prior  to  judgment. 
Watts  V.  Eckles,  11  Pa.  Dist.  570. 
A  beneficiary  in  a  trust  deed,  or 
one  who,  after  commencement  of 
action  to  foreclose  a  mechanic's 
lien,  buys  the  property  under  the 
trust  deed,  having  a  right,  under 
Gen.  St.  Col.  §  2161,  and  Code  Civ. 
Proc.  Colo.  §  22,  to  intervene  and 


interpose  anj'^  legal  defense,  by 
failing  to  do  so,  knowing  of  the 
action,  waives  his  right  to  be  a 
party.  Cornell  v.  Conine-Eaton 
Lumber  Co.,  9  Colo.  App.  225,  47 
Pac.  912. 

Contractor. — "The  purpose  to 
be  served  by  making  the  contrac- 
tor a  party,  is  that  he  may  de- 
fend at  his  own  expense,  and  the 
statute  (Section  5122),  pro^•ides 
that,  if  he  fails  to  make  such  de- 
fense, the  owner  may  make  it  for 
him.  For  this  purpose  the  con- 
tractor may  be  brought  into  the 
action  at  any  time  on  the  applica- 
tion of  either  party,  provided  the 
action  is  properly  brought  against 
the  owner  of  the  premises  within 
the  year."  Western  Sash  &  Door 
Co.  V.  Heiman,  65  Kan.  5,  68  Pac. 
1080. 

3  Kelley  v.  Gilbert,  78  Md.  431, 
28  Atl.  274. 

■1  Robock 
toba  124. 

5  Van   Winkle 
457. 

>5  Colorado.  —  Bitter  v.  Mouat 
Lumber  &  Inv.  Co.,  10  Colo.  App. 
307,    51    Pac.    519. 


V.     Peters,    13   Mani- 


Stow,   23   Cal. 


559 


PROCESS — SUMMONS. 


[§232 


ing"  mechanics'  liens  sustain  such  a  peculiar  relation  to  the 
property  sought  to  be  foreclosed  in  such  an  action 
by  reason  of  their  labor  and  materials  going  into  and 
forming  a  part  of  the  property,  that  it  may  be  said  that  they 
always  should  be  made  parties,  and  if  not  made  parties  in  the 
original  petition,  they  should  be  allowed  to  come  in  afterward 
and  present  their  claimsJ 

§  232.  Process — Summons. — Process  is  the  method  em- 
ployed by  law  to  bring  a  party  into  court. ^  A  defendant 
is  usually  brought  into  court  by  service  of  summons.  If  he 
is  personally  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  it  is  made 
upon  him  in  person;  if  he  is  not  within  the  jurisdiction  then 
it  is  constructively  made  by  publication.  In  either  case  it 
must  be  made  in  the  manner  the  statute  provides  or  it  is 
ineffective  and  the  court  has  no  jurisdiction  or  power  to  make 
any  order  that  will  bind  the  defendant  or  his  property.^     The 


Kansas. — Erving  v.  Phelps,  &c., 
Windmill  Co.,  52  Kan.  787,  35  Pac. 
800. 

Maryland. — Carson  v.  White,  6 
Gill.    (Md.)    17. 

New  York. — Brewster  v.  Mc- 
Laughlin, 28  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  50,  58 
N.   Y.    Supp.    989. 

Tennessee. — Ragon  v.  Howard, 
97  Tenn.  334,  37  S.  W.  136.  Must 
not  be  so  late  as  to  defer  judg- 
ment. Hocker  v.  Kelley,  14  Cal. 
164.  His  failure  to  intervene  in 
the  first  suit,  of  which  he  had 
knowledge,  does  not  estop  him 
from  maintaining  the  action. 
Wakefield  v.  Van  Dorn,  53  Neb. 
23,    73    N.    W.    226. 

7  Johnson  v.  Keeler,  46  Kan. 
304,  26  Pac.  728;  Dewing  v.  Con- 
gregational Society,  13  Gray 
(Mass.)  414.  Statute  brought 
them     in.       Hunter     v.     Truckee 


Lodge,  14  Nev.  24.     Subcontractor. 
Pool  V.  Sanford,  52  Tex.  621. 

1  I  Bouv.  Diet.  tit.  Process.  See 
Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics' 
Liens  §  264. 

2  Iowa. — Kitsmiller  v.  Kitchen, 
24  Iowa  163;  Jones,  &c..  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Boggs,  63  Iowa  589,  19  N. 
W.  678. 

Missouri. — McKelvey  v.  Won- 
derly,  26  Mo.  App.  631. 

JVew  York. — Tinker  v.  Geraghty, 
1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  687;  Mc- 
Sorley  v.  Hogan,  1  Code  Rep.  (N. 
Y.)  285.  But  if  the  proceedings 
are  strictly  in  rem,  notice  actual 
or  constructive,  is  essential  to 
the  validity  of  the  judgment 
against  all  the  world.  Construc- 
tive notice  is  an  essential  to  the 
validity  of  a  judgment  in  rem,  as 
actual  notice  is  to  that  of  a  judg- 
ment in  personam;    a  proceeding 


§  232]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  560 

mere  fact  that  the  defendant  is  referred  to  in  the  petition  will 
not  be  sufficient.  Summons  must  be  issued  for  him  and 
served  as  the  law  provides.^  If  the  service  of  summons  should 
be  defective  and  the  party  answers  he  waives  such  defect  and 
brings  himself  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court. ^  In  no 
sense  is  a  person  properly  a  party  until  he  is  served  with 
summons.^  Until  he  is  so  served  the  action  is  not  "pending." 
A  corporation  must  be  designated  and  served  as  such.*'  If 
the  action  is  against  the  property  of  an  insolvent  owner  and 
the  action  is  against  the  assignee  without  designation  of  his 
office  it  will  be  held  that  he  is  merely  made  a  party  as  an 
individual."  Vendor  and  purchaser  in  an  executory  contract 
are  held  under  some  code  proceedings  to  be  so  united  in  inter- 
est, that  service  on  one  will  bind  both,  so  far  as  the  foreclosure 
of  a  lien  is  concerned.^  While  a  court  will  not  let  technicalties 
defeat  the  law,  yet  in  matters  of  the  issue  of  process  and  the 
service  of  summons  the  statute  must  be  followed.^  How- 
ever, the  mere  fact  that  the  suit  is  referred  to  in  the  summons 
as  on  the  chancery  side  of  the  court,  when  it  is  on  the  law 
side,  is  a  technicality  that  will  not  be  allowed  to  defeat  the 

professing  to  determine  the  right  475,  35  Pac.  116,  38  Am.  St.   899. 

of  property  without  notice  actual  8  ]Moore  v.  McLaughlin,  11  App. 

or   constructive,    is    a  mere   arbi-  Div.    (N.  Y.)    477,  42  N.  Y.   Supp. 

trary    edict,    not    to    be    regarded  356. 

anywhere    as   the   judgment   of    a  9  McDonnell     v.     Nicholson,     67 

court.     McKim   v.    ]Mason,    3    Md.  Mo.  App.  408.  "It  is,  and  has  been, 

Ch.   186.  the   policy  of  our  law  to  protect 

3  Clayton  v.  Farrar  Lumber  Co.,  and  enforce  this  lien  of  mechanics 

119  Ga.  37,  45  S.  E.  723.  and   furnishers   and  not  to   allow 

^  Oliver    v.    Fowler,    22    S.    Car.  them  to  be  defeated  by  any  tech- 

534.  nical     niceties     of     construction. 

5  Missoula  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Burr  v.  Graves,  4  Lea.  552;  Cole 
O'Donnell,  24  Mont.  65,  60  Pac.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Falls,  90  Tenn.  (6 
594,   991.  Pick.)    466.   At  the   same    time   it 

6  Schillinger  Fire-Proof  Cement  cannot  be  held  that  the  lien  will 
&  Asphalt  Co.  V.  Arnott,  14  N.  be  protected  when  there  is  an 
Y.  Supp.  326.  entire  want  of  diligence  and  care 

"  Quinby    v.    Slipper,     7     Wash.      to  ascertain  the  true  state  of  the 


561 


PERSONAL  AND  CONSTRUCTIVE  SERVICE. 


233 


action. ^'^  Where  a  defendant  sets  up  the  matter  in  a  cross- 
complaint,  and  seeks  affirmative  relief  against  the  plaintiff 
or  co-defendant,  summons  must  issue  against  him,  and  the 
co-defendant  or  plaintiff  must  be  brought  into  court  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  original  defendant, ^^  and  in  general,  ser- 
vice must  be  had  on  the  real  party  in  interest. ^^  'pj^g  residence 
of  the  owner  will  give  jurisdiction  for  the  service  of  process 
on  him,  if  the  property  is  in  the  same  county  and  in  some  cases 
summons  may  be  issued  to  contractors  and  others  living  in 
adjoining  counties. ^^ 

§  233.  Personal  and  constructive  service. — As  a  rule  the 
statutes  do  not  allow  a  personal  judgment  to  be  rendered  un- 
less there  is  personal  service,^  and  the  pleadings  should  dis- 
close the  kind  of  an  action,  so  that  there  can  be  gathered 
therefrom,  the  kind  of  service  to  be  made.^     Even  where  the 


title  to  the  prejudice  of  the  real 
owner."  Ragon  v.  Howard,  97 
Tenn.   334,  37  S.  W.  136. 

10  Reed  v.  Boyd,  84  111.  66. 

11  Powell  V.  Nolan,  27  Wash. 
318,  67  Pac.  712,  68  Pac.  389. 

12  Trustee  in  bankruptcy. — Un- 
der Gen.  Laws,  R.  I.,  1896,  c.  206, 
§  10,  providing  that  a  citation  in 
proceedings  to  enforce  a  me- 
chanic's lien  shall  issue  to  the 
owner  of  the  property,  and  to 
each  and  every  person  having  a 
mortgage,  attachment,  or  any 
other  conveyance  thereof,  or  of 
any  part  thereof,  on  record,  a 
trustee  in  bankruptcy  of  the  ori- 
ginal owner,  appointed  after  the 
lien  has  attached,  should  be 
treated  as  the  owner;  and  service 
on  him  was  sufficient,  without 
service  on  the  bankrupt.  Haw- 
kins  V.   Boyden,   2.5   R.    I.   181,   55 


Atl.    324;    Johnson    v.    Frazee,    20 
S.  Car.  500. 

13  Mathews  v.  Heisler,  58  Mo. 
App.  145. 

1  Colcord  V.  Funck,  1  Morris 
(Iowa)  178;  Seiglestyle  v.  Diesen- 
roth,  12  Bush.  (Ky.)  296;  Kelsey 
V.  Rourke,  50  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
315. 

2  Christian  v.  O'Neal,  46  Miss. 
669;  Chapman  v.  Bolton  Steel  Co., 
2  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  523;  Davis  v. 
John  Mouat  Lumber  Co.,  2  Colo. 
App.  381,  31  Pac.  187;  McCann  v. 
Gerding,  27  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  845,  59 
N.  Y.  Supp.  381.  In  a  suit  to 
foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien,  the 
objection  that  "the  affidavit  does 
not  show  a  legal  service  of  the 
papers"  sufficiently  raises  the 
question  whether  the  notice  of 
lien  was  properly  served.  Han- 
nah, &c.,  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Mos- 
ser,  105  Mich.  18,  62  N.  W.  1120. 


36 


§233] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


562 


statute  permits  a  judgment  in  personam,^  and  service  by  publi- 
cation, such  service  cannot  be  had  if  the  person  is  with'm  the 
state  and  it  is  possible  to  make  personal  service.'*  As  a  general 
rule  it  must  be  shown  that  personal  service  cannot  be  made 
before  service  by  publication  can  be  had.^  A  proceeding  to 
foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien  being  generally  regarded  as  a 
proceeding  in  rem,  service  by  publication  is  sufficient  if  made 
in  the  manner  the  statute  provides.^  A  defective  publication 
can  only  be  remedied  by  a  new  and  correct  one.'''  And  where 
service  may  be  so  made  by  publication,  the  court  may  make 
such  order  as  will  secure  the  mechanic's  claim  and  the  ap- 
plication of  money  accruing  from  the  sale  of  the  premises.^ 
Where  service  is  made  by  publication,  proof  must  be  produced 
in  court  that  it  has  been  made  as  the  statute  requires.^  On 
the  question  as  to  what  is  meant  by  certain  expressions  in 
the  statute  as  to  the  time  in  which  service  should  be  made 
the  reader  is  referred  to  the  footnote  for  a  collection  of  a 
variety  of  holdings. ^'^* 


3  Gould  V.  Garrison,  48  111.  258. 

4  Falconer  v.  Frazier,  7  Sm.  & 
M.    (Miss.)    235. 

5  Falconer  v.  Frazier,  7  Sm.  & 
M.  (Miss.)  235;  Bernhardt  v. 
Brown,  118  N.  Car.  700,  24  S.  E. 
527,  715,  36  L.  R.  A.  402. 

6  Genest  v.  Las  Vegas  Masonic 
Bldg.  Assn,  11  N.  Mex.  251,  67 
Pac.  743. 

7  Vickerie  v.  Spencer,  9  R.  I. 
585. 

ssimonson  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Citizens'  State  Bank,  105  Iowa 
264,   74   N.   W.   905. 

9  Decker  v.  Myles,  4  Colo.  558. 

10  Under  a  statute  which  re- 
quires that  the  plaintiff  shall 
cause  notice  to  be  published  at 
least  once  a  week  for  three  con- 
secutive weeks  in  some  newspaper 


published  in  the  county,  it  was 
held  that  if  it  was  published  three 
times  in  three  consecutive  weeks 
in  a  weekly  newspaper,  although 
less  than  21  days  intervened  be- 
tween the  days  of  the  first  publi- 
cation and  the  time  when  the 
publication  was  complete,  it  was 
sufficient.  Decker  v.  Myles,  4 
Colo.  558.  Under  a  statute  requir- 
ing publication  for  three  succes- 
sive weeks  it  was  held  that  while 
the  language  admitted  of  two 
constructions,  the  court  was  in- 
clined to  adopt  that  which  re- 
quired three  full  weeks  to  inter- 
vene between  the  date  of  the  first 
publication  and  the  time  named. 
Shipley  v.  Mitchell,  7  Blackf. 
(Ind.)  472.  Under  a  statute  that 
required    a    notice    to    be    given 


563 


PROCESS MISCELLANEOUS. 


[§234 


§  234.  Process — Miscellaneous  matters. — Under  some  stat- 
utes it  is  required  that  indorsements  must  be  made  on  the 
claim  or  writ,  and  where  this  is  required  the  service  is  de- 
fective if  the  indorsements  are  not  made/  but  if  the  indorse- 


three  weeks  before  the  time  of 
meeting,  it  was  held  that  three 
full  weeks  was  necessary.  In  re 
North  Whitehall  Township,  47  Pa. 
St.  156.  And  where  the  notice 
is  required  to  be  published 
weekly  for  one  month,  the  full 
calendar  month  was  intended  to 
be  and  must  be  covered  by  the 
period  of  publication.  Mitchell  v. 
Woodson,  37  Miss.  573.  Under  a 
statute  requiring  publication  in 
some  newspaper  once  in  each 
week  for  at  least  twelve  succes- 
sive weeks,  the  court  held  that 
84  days  full  period  of  twelve 
weeks  must  intervene  between 
the  first  publication  and  the  day 
of  sale.  Early  v.  Doe,  16  How. 
(U.  S.)  610,  14  L.  ed.  1079.  In 
another  case,  a  sale  was  held 
valid  where  made  under  a  decree 
which  required  notice  of  the  sale 
to  be  advertised  in  a  certain 
newspaper  for  three  weeks  suc- 
cessively, although  less  than 
twenty-one  days  intervened  be- 
tween the  date  of  the  first  publi- 
cation and  the  date  of  sale.  Gar- 
rett V.  Moss,  20  111.  549.  And 
where  the  statute  required  no- 
tice to  be  published  for  three 
successive  weeks,  a  notice  was 
held  valid  which  was  published 
once  each  week  for  three  succes- 
sive weeks.  Pearson  v.  Bradley, 
48  111.  250.  In  another  case 
where  the  notice  was  to  be  pub- 


lished for  three  times  for  three 
successive  weeks,  it  was  held  suf- 
ficient if  three  publications  were 
made  in  three  successive  weeks. 
Andrews  v.  The  People,  84  ill. 
34.  In  another  state  the  statute 
required  publication  for  three 
weeks  successively,  publications 
were  made  on  the  15th,  22d,  and 
29th  days  of  the  month  and  the 
sale  was  advertised  for  the  30th 
in  the  same  month,  and  although 
but  15  days  intervened  between 
the  first  publication  and  the  day 
of  sale,  it  was  held  that  the  sta- 
tute was  complied  with.  Swett 
V.  Sprague,  55  Me.  190.  In  New 
York  it  is  sufficient  to  publish  a 
copy  of  the  notice  in  six  succes- 
sive numbers  of  a  weekly  news- 
paper, although  the  first  publi- 
cation may  be  less  than  six  weeks 
prior  to  the  sale.  Olcott  v.  Robin- 
son, 21  N.  Y.  150,  78  Am.  Dec. 
126.  And  under  a  statute  that  re- 
quired publication  for  three 
weeks  immediately  previous  to 
the  time  of  sale,  at  least  twice 
in  each  week  publication  was 
sufficient  although  three  full 
weeks  had  not  intervened. 
Chamberlain  v.  Dempsey,  22  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  357;  Wood  v.  More- 
house, 45  N.  Y.  368. 

1  Hall  V.  Spaulding,  40  N.  J.  L. 
166;  Currier  v.  Cummings,  40  N. 
J.  Eq.  145,  3  Atl.  174 ;  Cox  v.  Flan- 
agan  (N.  J.  Eq.),  2  Atl.  33. 


§234] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


564 


ments  are  immaterial  they  may  be  waived. ^  In  some  juris- 
dictions the  lien  is  enforceable  by  way  of  attachment  upon 
the  property  upon  which  it  is  sought  to  fasten  the  lien. 
Under  such  statutes,  the  law  relating  to  service  must  be 
strictly  followed.-^  Unless  the  defendant  is  served  in  the  man- 
ner provided  the  attachment  is  a  nullity.*  In  states  where 
the  distinction  between  law  and  equity  procedure  is  recog- 
nized, the  proceedings  must  be  transferred  from  the  law  to 
the  equity  side  of  the  court.^  Generally  it  is  not  necessary 
to  bring  an  attachment  to  get  jurisdiction  of  the  property, 
since  it  is  a  proceeding  in  rem,  and  where  process  is  had,  the 
property  is  seized  by  the  court. "^     In  some  states  the  lien  is 


2  James  v.  Van  Horn  Co.,  10 
Vroom  (N.  J.  L.)  353.  In  an  ac- 
tion for  a  mechanic's  lien,  it  is 
not  necessary  that  the  summons 
should  state  that  judgment  will 
be  taken  for  a  lien.  Willamette 
Falls  Transportation  &  Milling 
Co.  V.  Riley,  1  Ore.  183. 

3  Summerlin  v.  Thompson,  31 
Fla.  369,  12  So.  667;  Brown  v. 
Brown,  34  Tenn.  431;  Barnes  v. 
Thompson,  32  Tenn.  313;  Warner 
V.  A.  H.  Yates  &  Co.,  118  Tenn. 
548,  102  S.  W.  92.  It  must  allege 
all  the  facts  that  will  constitute 
a  lien.  Stearns  v.  Jaudon,  27 
Fla.  469,  18  So.  640.  In  an  action 
to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien  for 
materials  furnished  in  the  con- 
struction of  a  building,  the  at- 
tachment must  be  made,  under 
Pub.  Laws,  1897,  p.  251,  c.  232, 
§  1,  within  90  days  after  the  ma- 
terials are  furnished.  Oakland 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Lemieux.  98  Ue.  488, 
57  Atl.  795.  Under  Mill.  &  V. 
Tenn.  Code,  §  2747,  providing  that 
mechanics'  liens  shall  be  enforced 
by    attachment    either    in    law    or 


equity,  or  by  judgment  and  exe- 
cution at  law,  to  be  levied  on  the 
property  on  which  the  lien  is,  an 
attachment  must  issue  and  be 
levied  upon  the  property  in  order 
to  preserve  or  enforce  such  lien. 
Dollman  v.  Collier,  92  Tenn.  660, 
22  S.  W.  741.  Not  proper  remedy. 
Aiken  v.  Kennedy,  1  White  &  W. 
Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.   (Tex.)   1321. 

•i  As  to  recitals  required.  Hill- 
man  V.  Anthony,  63  Tenn.  444 
Shelby  v.  Hicks,  37  Tenn.  197 
Brown  v.  Brown,  34  Tenn.  431 
McLeod  V.  Capell,  66  Tenn.  196 
Order  must  be  made  by  the  court 
Cannot  be  commenced  by  affidavit 
DeSoto  Lumber  Co.  v.  Loeb,  110 
Tenn.  251,  75  S.  W.  1043. 

5  Hillman  v.  Anthony,  63  Tenn. 
444. 

'5  Bernhardt  v.  Brown,  118  N. 
Car.  700,  24  S.  E.  527,  715,  36  L. 
R.  A.  402.  Procedure  according 
to  general  laws.  Strong  v.  Lake 
Weir  Chautaqua  &  Lyceum  Assn., 
25  Fla.  765,  6  So.  882.  Salt  Lake 
Lithographing  Co.  v.  Ibex  Mine  & 
Smelting  Co.,  15  Utah  440,  49  Pac. 


565 


PROCESS — MISCELLANEOUS. 


[§234 


enforced  by  the  old  common  law  writ  of  scire  faciasJ  In 
these  jurisdictions  the  original  must  set  forth  all  the  facts 
which  permit  the  issviance  of  the  writ,^  or  the  writ  will  be  subject 
to  a  motion  to  quash.^  Under  this  writ  the  proceeding  is 
called  a  proceeding  in  rem/*^  and  generally  the  same  par- 
ticularity is  required  as  in  foreclosure  proceedings.^^  In  some  few 
states  the  statutes  require  a  lien  claimant  to  file  a  notice  lis 
pendens.  Where  this  is  required  the  claimant  must  follow 
the  provision  if  he  would  get  the  benefit  of  the  statute. ^^ 


768.  Sundays  are  included  in  the 
90  days  in  which  to  make  an  at- 
tachment to  enforce  a  mechanic's 
lien,  under  Pub.  Laws  Me.  1897, 
p.  251,  c.  232,  §1.  Oakland  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Lemieux,  98  Me.  488,  57 
Atl.  795. 

7  Morgan  v.  Bloecker,  6  Pa. 
Dist.  R.  659,  41  W.  N.  C.  127.  The 
proceeding  by  scire  facias  to  en- 
force a  mechanic's  lien  is  not 
taken  away  by  the  new  Code. 
Doellner  v.  Rogers,  16  Mo.  340. 
A  scire  facias  is  a  judicial  writ 
used  to  enforce  the  execution  of 
some  matter  of  record  on  which 
it  is  usually  founded;  but  though 
a  judicial  writ,  or  writ  of  execu- 
tion, it  is  so  far  an  original  that 
the  defendant  may  plead  to  it. 
As  it  discloses  the  facts  on  which 
it  is  founded  and  requires  an  an- 
swer from  the  defendant,  it  is  in 
the  nature  of  a  declaration,  and 
the  plea  is  properly  to  the  writ. 
In  the  present  case,  the  bill  of 
particulars  of  the  plaintiff's  claim 
is  filed  of  record  under  the  stat- 
ute which  gives  this  remedy,  and 
it  is  recited  in  the  writ  and  there- 
by made  part  of  it,  so  that  any 
further  pleading  on  his  part,  to 
set    forth    the    nature    of    his    de- 


mand, would  be  wholly  super- 
fluous. Winder  v.  Caldwell,  55  U. 
S.   (14  How.)   434,  14  L.  Ed.  487. 

8  Carswell  v.  Patzowski,  3 
Penne.  (Del.)  573,  53  Atl.  54;  Con- 
ley  V.  Zweighaft,  7  Pa.  Dist.  87; 
Gordon  v.  Norton,  5  Lack.  Leg.  N. 
381,  23  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  R.  158,  9  Pa. 
Dist.  29;  East  Stroudsburg  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Ottenheimer,  4  Pa.  Dist. 
R.  730.  Amount  claimed  must  be 
stated.  Officer  must  retain  what 
he  has  done.  Plummer  v.  Ecken- 
rode,  50  Md.  225.  Incorrect  re- 
turn. Donahoo  v.  Scott,  12  Pa. 
45. 

9  Wilson  V.  Merryman,  48  Md. 
328.  Can  not  be  maintained  on 
claim  apportioned  among  several 
buildings.  Jones  v.  Shawhan,  4 
Watts  &  S.    (Pa.)   257. 

10  Anshutz  V.  McClelland,  5 
Watts  (Pa.)  487. 

11  Smith  V.  Klinger,  9  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  301 

12  Rockwood  V.  Walcott,  85 
Mass.  458;  Ward  v.  Kilpatrick,  85 
N.  Y.  413,  39  Am.  Rep.  674 ;  Bowes 
V.  New  York  Christian  Home,  64 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  509.  The  order 
of  notice  on  a  petition  filed  in 
vacation,  to  enforce  a  mechanic's 
lien,  need  not  be  made  returnable 


§235] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


566 


§  235.  Pleading — Declaration — Petition — Form. — The  gen- 
eral rules  of  pleading  applicable  in  the  particular  jurisdiction 
govern  in  the  action  for  the  foreclosure  of  mechanics'  liens. 
The  first  pleading  is  variously  termed  the  Petition,  the  Bill, 
the  Complaint  or  the  Declaration.  Whatever  the  designation 
the  one  essential  is  that  it  must  show  that  the  person  bringing 
the  action  has  performed  all  of  the  conditions  required  by  the 
statute  creating  a  lien.  Generally  there  is  no  rule  of  pleading 
applicable  only  to  mechanics'  liens. ^  As  a  rule,  a  complaint  or 
petition  that  sufficiently  describes  the  property,  fixes  the  time 
and  manner  of  labor,  the  amount  due,  and  that  the  lien  was 
filed  within  the  statutory  time,  and  contains  also  the  necessary 
averments  in  ordinary  suits  in  equity,  is  sufficient.^  The  petition 
must  show  that  plaintifif's  claim  is  within  the  law,  and  that 
it  has  been  perfected  as  the  law  provides  and  that  the  lien 


at  the  next  term.  WortHen  v. 
Cleaveland,  129  Mass.  570.  The 
omission  to  file  a  notice  of  lis 
pendens  in  an  action  to  enforce 
a  mechanic's  lien  cannot  be 
raised  for  the  first  time  as  an  ob- 
jection to  the  rendition  of  judg- 
ment. Julius  V.  Callahan,  63 
Minn.  154,  65  N.  W.  267.  Any 
party  on  whom  the  notice  is 
served  may  make  the  objection,  if 
he  has  not  waived  it  by  a  general 
appearance.  Otis  v.  Voorhis,  49 
How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   273. 

1  Benner  v.  Schmidt,  44  111.  App. 
304;  Jorgensen  Co.  v.  Sheldon,  2 
Alaska,  607.  See  §  101.  See  Dec. 
&  Am.  Dig.  tit.  ^Mechanic's  Lien 
§269. 

2  Idaho. — Robertson  v.  :\Ioore, 
10  Idaho  115,  77  Pac.  218. 

Indiana. — Price  v.  Jennings,  62 
Ind.  Ill;  Montpelier  Light  & 
Water  Co.  v.  Stephenson,  22  Ind. 
App.  175,  53  N.  E.  444. 


Missouri. — Bickel  v.  Gray,  81 
Mo.  App.  653. 

Nebraska. — Hersh  &  Son  v.  Car- 
man, 51  Neb.  784,  71  N.  W.  713. 

Oreg'on. — Watson  v.  Noonday 
Min.  Co.,  37  Ore.  287,  60  Pac.  994. 

^Visconsin. — Dewey  v.  Fifield,  2 
Wis.    55. 

New  York. — Clarke  v.  Heylman, 
80  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  572,  80  N. 
Y.  Supp.  794.  A  complaint  alleg- 
ing that  defendant  A.,  by  contract 
with  defendants  C.  and  L.,  fur- 
nished the  materials  and  erected 
a  building  on  the  land  of  C.  and 
L.  herein  described,  and  bought 
of  plaintiffs'  assignor  window 
frames,  stairs,  doors,  inside  fur- 
nishing material,  lumber  etc.,  of 
the  agreed  value  of  $2,695,  which 
went  into  the  construction  of  said 
building,  is  sufficient.  Bardwell 
v.  Anderson,  13  Mont.  87,  32  Pac. 
285.  The  rules  of  pleading  pre- 
scribed bv  the  statute  relating  to 


567 


PLEADING DECLARATION. 


[§235 


may  be  foreclosed  as  the  law  requires.^    It  must  show  the  per- 
formance of  all  the  conditions  precedent  to  the  establishment 


mechanic's  liens  do  not  apply  to 
cases  which  as  set  out  in  the  dec- 
laration are  not  within  the  stat- 
ute. Coddington  v.  Beebe,  29  N. 
J.  L.  550. 

Against  Purchasers. — A  bill  for 
the  foreclosure  of  a  mechanic's 
lien  alleging  that  a  purchaser  of 
the  property  agreed  in  writing  to 
pay  the  claim,  but  containing  no 
allegation  showing  to  whom  the 
promise  was  made,  or  as  to  any 
consideration  therefor,  will  not 
support  a  personal  judgment 
against  the  purchaser.  Miller  v. 
Schaefer,  75  111.  App.  389. 

Form  of  Petition.— Plaintiffs 
say    that     about     the    month    of 

A.  D.  1858,  Squire 

Worrell  employed  plaintiffs  to 
build  a  dwelling-house  in  the  town 
of  Waterloo,  in  Clarke  County, 
Mo.,  which  is  situated  on  lot  No. 
200,  in  Block  No.  23,  in  said  town 
mentioned  aforesaid. 

Plaintiffs  further  state,  that 
they  (plaintiffs)  completed  said 
house  on  or  before  the  19th  day  of 
December,  1858,  according  to  the 
contract  with  said  Worrell.  Plain- 
tiffs further  state,  that  the  said 
Worrell  was  to  furnish  all  the 
materials  for  building  said  house, 
and  plaintiffs  were  to  do  all  the 
carpenter's  work  upon  said  house 
for  the  sum  of  $76,  which  amount 
was  to  be  paid  as  soon  as  the 
carpenter  work  was  completed. 
Plaintiffs  further  state,  that  on  or 
before  the  first  of  January,  1859, 
the  said  Worrell  sold  said  house 
to  Isaac  Fields. 


Plaintiffs  further  state,  that 
said  Fields  purchased  from  the 
said    Worrell    as    aforesaid,    and 

that  on   or   about  the    

day  of  January  1859,  the  said 
Fields  took  a  mortgage  upon  the 
property  of  Worrell  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  himself  in  the 
event  that  plaintiffs  should  file 
their  lien  upon  said  house.  Plain- 
tiffs further  state,  that  they 
(plaintiffs)  filed  their  mechanic's 
lien  upon  the  said  house  men- 
tioned aforesaid  on  the  8th  day 
of  February  1859,  for  the  amount 
that  was  due  plaintiffs,  which  was 
$62. 

Plaintiffs  further  state  that  the 
mortgage  mentioned  aforesaid 
will  appear  of  record  in  the  Re- 
corder's Office,  and  that  the  lien 
mentioned  aforesaid  is  not  filed  in 
said  office.  Plaintiffs  further  ask 
a  judgment  for  the  amount  of  said 
lien,  which  is  $62,  and  interest 
from  the  filing  thereof  and  for 
general  relief.  Briggs  v.  Wor- 
rell, 33  Mo.  157.  A  bill  in  equity 
to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien  must 
allege  every  fact  essential  to  the 
right  to  such  lien  with  accur- 
acy and  clearness,  so  that  issue 
may  be  taken  thereon;  and  a 
mere  allegation  that  complainant 
has  filed  a  statement  and  is  enti- 
tled to  such  a  lien  is  sufficient. 
Canton  Roll  &  Machine  Co.  v. 
Rolling  Mill  Co.,  155  Fed.  321. 

3  Hingert  v.  American  Trust  & 
Sav.  Bk.,  100  111.  App.  85;  Hunter 
v.    Cordon,    32    Ore.    443,    52    Pac. 


§236] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


568 


of  a  cause  of  action.^"  The  facts  that  properly  come  into 
existence  after  the  filing  of  a  petition  need  not  be  averred 
therein.^  It  is  especially  necessary  that  the  declaration  or 
petition  should  show  on  its  face  that  all  the  statutory  re- 
quirements essential  to  the  creation  of  a  lien  have  been  satis- 
fied.-*  The  mere  reference  to  the  filed  lien  will  not  be  suffi- 
cient.^ Nor  is  a  defect  in  a  petition  cured  by  filing  a  copy 
of  the  statement."  A  reference  to  an  account  attached  as 
an  exhibit,  showing  what  materials  have  been  furnished,  is 
sufficient.^  Likewise  any  material  matter  therein  may  be  re- 
ferred to  and  made  a  part  of  the  petition.^ 

§  236,  Pleading — Petition — Allegations  of. — While  the  dif- 
ferent steps  necessary  to  create  a  lien  should  be  set  forth,  yet 
they  do  not  constitute  separate  causes  of  action  requiring  sepa- 
rate statement  and  numbering.^      A  petition  is  not  rendered 


182;  Rhodes  v.  Jones,  26  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  568,  64  S.  W.  699. 

3a  Shields  v.  Sorg,  129  111.  App. 
266,  judgment  affirmed,  Sorg  v. 
Crandall,  233  111.  79,  84  *N.  E.  181. 

4Gaas  V.  Souther,  167  N.  Y. 
604,  60  N.  E.  1111,  also  46  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  256,  61  N.  Y.  Supp. 
305. 

5  HathoVne  v.  Panama  Park  Co., 
44  Fla.  194.  32  So.  812;  Watkins 
V.  Shaw,  7  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  415; 
Wagenhorst  v.  Wessner,  1  Woodw. 
Dec.  (Pa.)  151;  Smith  v.  Wilkins, 
31  Ore.  421,  48  Pac.  70S.  Certifi- 
cate of  architect  where  contract 
so  provides.  McGlauflin  v.  Worm- 
ser,    28    Mont.    177,    72    Pac.    428. 

6  Fay  V.  Adams,  8  Mo.  App.  566; 
Central  City  Brick  Co.  v.  Norfolk 
&c.,  R.  Co.  44  W.  Va.  286,  28  S. 
E.    926. 

\eed  Not  Plead  What  is  of  no 
Benefit. — That     a     certificate     of 


lien  made  a  part  of  the  complaint 
in  foreclosure  of  a  mechanic's  lien 
failed  to  state  that  a  copy  of  the 
lien  notice  was  returned  to  the 
lienor  cannot  affect  his  right  to  a 
lien,  the  return  of  the  copy  not 
being  a  matter  which  he  was 
bound  to  plead.  Waterbury  Lum- 
ber &  Coal  Co.  V.  Coogan,  73  Conn. 
519,  48  Atl.  204. 

"  Newport  &c..  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Lichtenfeldt,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1969, 
72   S.   W.   778. 

'^  Parker  Land  &  Improvement 
Co.  V.  Reddick,  18  Ind.  App.  616 
47  N.  E.  84S;  Bricker  v.  Gresham, 
1  Mo.  App.  Rep'r.,  421. 

9  Jones  V.  Shaw,  53  Mo.  68, 
Matthiesen  v.  Arata,  32  Ore.  342, 
50  Pac.  1015;  Huse  v.  Washburn, 
59  Wis.  414,  18  N.  W.  341. 

1  Hardy  v.  Miller,  11  Neb.  395, 
9  N.  W.  475.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.  tit.  Mechanic's  Lien  §  271. 


569 


PLEADING PETITION ALLEGATIONS. 


[§236 


multifarious  by  reason  of  asking  a  personal  judgment  and  also 
a  foreclosure  of  the  lien.^  Immaterial  defects  or  material  ones 
where  no  one  is  injured  will  not  defeat  the  cause  of  action.^ 
Other  necessary  facts  being  alleged,  it  is  not  necessary  to  al- 
lege the  capacity  in  which  the  plaintiff  sues,  whether  as  con- 
tractor or  subcontractor.-*  However,  a  petition  is  defective 
which  alleges  or  shows  services  for  some  things  subject  to  a 
lien  and  some  things  not  subject  to  a  lien,  intermingled  as  one 
cause  of  action.^  Some  courts  have  held,  however,  that  objec- 
tions on  this  ground  must  be  made  before  trial,"  and  that  the 
items  must  be  so  blended  as  to  be  inseparable.'^  A  petition  is  not 
defective  merely  because  it  does  not  allege  that  the  money  is 
due,  if  it  shows  that  the  contract  was  performed ;  the  law  will 
presume  that  the  money  was  due  upon  the  completion  of  the 
contract. 8      Facts  of  which  the  court  takes  judicial  notice  need 


2  West  V.  Grainger,  46  Fla.  257, 
35  So.  91;  Kasper  v.  St.  Louis 
Terminal  Ry.  Co.  101  Mo.  App. 
323,  74  S.  W.  145;  Freese  v.  Avery, 
57  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  633,  69  N.  Y. 
Supp.  150;  United  States  Blowpipe 
Co.  V.  Spencer,  40  W.  Va.  698,  21 
S.  E.  769. 

3  Bryan  v.  Abbott,  131  Cal.  222, 
63  Pac.  363 ;  Sawyer-Austin  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Clark,  172  Mo.  588,  73 
S.  W.  137.  Where  a  petition  for 
a  mechanic's  lien  used  the  word 
"south"  in  describing  the  prop- 
erty, instead  of  the  word  "north" 
and  it  was  evident  from  the  con- 
text that  such  use  of  the  word 
"south"  was  a  mistake,  such  mis- 
take did  not  vitiate  the  lien. 
Sawyer-Austin  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Clark,  82  Mo.  App.  225.  An  an- 
swer setting  up  a  mechanic's  lien, 
but  omitting  to  state  the  names 
of  the  owners  of  the  property  at 


the  time  the  improvement  was 
made,  is  not  fatally  defective,  if 
the  lien  notices  attached  to  the 
answer  contain  the  names  of  such 
owners.  Title  Gurantee  &  Trust 
Co.  V.  Wrenn,  35  Ore.  62,  56  Pac. 
271. 

•1  Salem  v.  Lane,  189  111.  593, 
60  N.  E.  37;  Reilly  v.  Poerschke, 
19  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  612,  44  N.  Y. 
Supp.   422. 

5  Murphy  v.  Guisti,  22  R.  I.  588, 
48  Atl.  944. 

0  Perkins  v.  Wilson,  1  Marv. 
(Del.)  196,  40  Atl.  950.  Defendant 
in  a  mechanic's  lien  case,  having 
pleaded  the  general  issue,  waives 
defects  in  the  lien  claim.  General 
Fire-Extinguisher  Co.  v.  Magee 
Carpet  Works,  199  Pa.  647,  49 
Atl.   366. 

"  Perkins  v.  Wilson,  1  Marv. 
(Del.)    196,  40  Atl.  950. 

8  Bryan  v.  Abbott,  131  Cal.  222, 
63  Pac.   363. 


§  236]  ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN.  570 

not  be  averred.^  And  the  petition  is  good  on  demurrer  if  it 
states  facts  sufficient  for  either  a  personal  judgment  or  fore- 
closure of  the  lien.^*^  Unless  the  statute  otherwise  provides, 
the  general  allegation  of  a  contract,  without  giving  its  details, 
is  sufficient. ^1  A  previous  demand  for  payment  is  not  gen- 
erally necessary,i2  ^nd  a  petition  is  good  on  demurrer  if  some 
of  the  items  are  within  the  statutory  period. ^^  Where  matters 
are  properly  before  a  court  it  is  sufficient  if  cross-claimants 
ask  that  their  claims  be  adjusted.^"*  A  liberal  rule  as  to  amend- 
ments is  usually  applied. ^^  It  is  not  generally  necessary  to 
allege  that  the  materials  were  purchased  for  the  structure  upon 
which  the  lien  is  claimed.  It  is  sufficient  if  this  fact  be  shown 
on  trial. I*'  Where  the  assignment  of  a  debt  carries  with  it  the 
right  to  perfect  the  lien,  the  complaint  need  not  aver  in  terms 
an  assignment  of  the  right  to  file  the  liens. ^"  Under  the  prac- 
tice in  some  jurisdictions  an  allegation  that  a  husband  and  wife 
are  owners  of  the  land  without  alleging  that  they  are  parties  to 


9  Bryan  v.  Abbott,  131  Cal.  222,  19   Tex.   Civ.   App.    355,   47   S.  W. 
63  Pac.  363.  831. 

10  Advance    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Auch,  12  Rhodes  v.  Webb-Jameson  Co. 
25   Ind.  App.   687,   58   N.   E.   1062;  19  Ind.  App.  195,  49  N.  E.  283. 
Mathiasen    v.    Shannon,    25    Misc.  i3  Indiana     Mut.      Building     & 
Rep.    (N.  Y.)    274,  54  N.  Y.  Supp.  Loan    Ass'n.    v.    Paxton,    18    Ind. 
305;    Childress   v.    Smith,   90  Tex.  App.  304,  47  N.  E.  1082. 

610,  37  S.  W.  1076.   Against  execu-  i-^  Rialto  Mining  &  Milling  Co. 

tor.     San    Francisco    Pav.    Co.    v.  v.    Lowell,    23    Colo.   253,    47    Pac. 

Fairfield,    134    Cal.    220,    66    Pac.  263;    Freese    v.    Avery,    57    App. 

255.     A    joint    general    demurrer  Div.    (N.  Y.)    633,   69  N.  Y.   Supp. 

to    a    complaint    for    insufficiency  150;    Lignoski    v.    Crooker,    (Tex. 

on    behalf   of    several    defendants  Civ.  App.)    22   S.  W.  774. 

is  bad,  if  the  complaint  states  a  i5  James     v.      Van      Horn,      10 

cause  of   action   against   any  one  Vroom  (N.  J.  L.)   353. 

of  them.     Mark  Paine  Lumber  Co.  10  Dougherty     v.     Loebelenz,     9 

V.    Douglas    County   Imp.    Co.,    94  Pa.    Super.    Ct.   344,   43   W.   N.    C. 

Wis.  322,  68  N.  W.  1013.  447. 

11  Griffith  V.  Maxwell,  20  Wash.  i7  Eagle   Gold-Min.   Co.  v.   Bry- 
403,    55    Pac.    571;    Bringhurst    v.  arly,  28  Colo.  262,  65  Pac.  52. 
Mutual    Building   &   Loan   Ass'n., 


571  PRAYER — DESCRIPTION  OF  PROPERTY.  [§  237 

the  contract,  will  not  support  a  judgment  against  the  wife.^^ 
But  it  will  be  good  against  the  person  alleged  to  have  entered 
into  the  contract. ^^ 

§  237.  Petition — Prayer  for  relief  and  description  of  prop- 
erty.— It  is  generally  not  necessary  that  the  petition  contain  a 
specific  prayer  for  a  lien.^  But  the  petition  should  set  forth  the 
facts  which  will  authorize  the  court  to  decree  a  lien  on  the 
premises  sought  to  be  held  for  the  lien,  and  it  would  be  very 
proper  to  insert  a  prayer  for  the  relief  desired.^  Likewise  the 
petition  should  be  so  framed  that  it  will  plainly  show  the  na- 
ture, purpose  and  object  of  the  suit.^  Where  the  distinctions 
between  law  and  equity  are  retained,  even  though  the  distinc- 
tion as  to  forms  has  been  abolished,  it  is  held  that  a  petition 
which  is  not  sufficient  to  decree  a  lien  upon,  although  brought 
as  in  equity  proceedings,  will  not  be  sufficient  to  allow  a  per- 
sonal judgment  where  if  it  had  been  filed  in  a  law  court,  such 
judgment  might  have  been  had.'*  Of  course  the  petition  must 
describe  the  property  upon  which  it  is  sought  to  have  a  lien 
foreclosed  and  it  is  generally  held  that  the  same  certainty  of 
description  is  demanded  that  is  required  in  a  levy  under  an 
execution.^    Where  the  amount  of  land  that  may  be  held  under 

18  Georges  v.  Kessler,  131  Gal.  lien,  the  lien  is  sufficiently  as- 
183,  63  Pac.  466.  serted.     Gillespie     v.     Remington, 

19  Georges  v.   Kessler,   131   Cal.      66  Tex.  108,  IS  S.  W.  338. 

183,  63  Pac.  466.  2  Mason  v.  Heyward,  5  Minn.  74; 

1  McCarty  v.  Van  Etten,  4  Minn.  Foster  v.   Poillon,  2  E.   D.   Smith 

461;   Johnson  v.  McHenry,  27  Mo.  (N.    Y.)    556,   1   Abb.    Pr.    (N.   Y.) 

264;    Cornell   v.   Matthews,    27    N.  321. 

J.  L.  522.  Where  the  petition  in  a  3  Poster    v.     Poillon,     2    E.     D. 

suit  to    recover    for    lumber    and  Smith,  (N.  Y.)  556,  1  Abb.  Pr.  (N. 

material    furnished,    and    to    en-  Y.)  321. 

force  a  lien  therefor,  alleges  the  -i  Ming  Yue  v.  Coos  Bay,  R.  &  E. 

facts    constituting    the    lien,    and  R.  &  Nav.  Co.,  24  Ore.  392,  33  Pac. 

prays   a  foreclosure   thereof,    and  641. 

the    registered    affidavit    attached  ■>  Alal)ai!ia. — Montgomery      Iron 

to  the  petition  states  that  it  is  Works  v.  Dorman,  78  Ala.  218; 
filed  to  "fix  and  secure"  plaintiff's 


237] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


572 


the  lien  is  an  issuable  fact,  then  the  averments  of  the  petition 
must  show  how  much  of  the  tract  is  claimed  to  be  subject  to 
the  lien.*^  However,  if  all  of  the  tract  of  land  that  is  subject 
to  a  lien  is  not  described  in  the  complaint  and  the  building  it- 
self covered  all,  a  decree  for  the  entire  tract  may  be  hadJ  As 
a  general  rule,  however,  only  the  part  of  the  land  described  in 
the  petition  can  be  held  and  decreed  to  be  subject  to  the  lien.^ 
If  more  should  be  described  than  can  be  held  for  the  lien,  the 
petition  is  not  defective.  The  court,  however,  can  only  decree  a 


Illinois. — Turney  v.  Saunders,  5 
111.  527. 

loTva. — O'Halloran  v.  Sullivan, 
1  G.  Greene,  (Iowa)   75. 

Minnesota. — McCarty  v.  Van 
Etten,  4  Minn.  461;  Knox  v. 
Starks,  4  Minn.  20. 

Missouri. — Sawyer-Austin  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Clark,  172  Mo.  588,  73 
S.  W.  137. 

]Vew  York. — Duffy  v.  Brady,  4 
Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  432. 

Wisconsin.  —  Brown  v.  La 
Crosse  City  Gaslight  &c.,  Co.,  16 
Wis.  578;  Security  Nat.  Bank  v. 
St.  Croix  Power  Co.,  117  Wis.  211, 
94  N.  W.  74.  Sufficient  descrip- 
tions, see  Lombard  v.  Johnson, 
76  111.  599.  Insufficient  descrip- 
tions, see  Crawfordsville  v.  Barr, 
65  Ind.  367.  A  petition  to  en- 
force a  mechanic's  lien  will  be 
dismissed  where  the  description 
is  defective,  and  insufficient  to 
identify  the  premises.  Williams 
V.  Porter,  51  Mo.  441.  Giving  the 
wrong  house  number,  if  the  lot  is 
correctly  described,  will  not  affect 
the  lien.  Griffith  v.  Maxwell,  20 
Wash.  403,  55  Pac.  571. 

6  Willamette  Steam  Mills  Co. 
V.    Kremer,    94    Cal.    205,    29    Pac. 


633;  McCarty  v.  Van  Etten,  4 
jNIinn.  461.  A  description  of  the 
property  as  a  large  building  on 
certain  lots  in  a  certain  block,  to- 
gether with  a  convenient  space  of 
land  around  the  same,  is  suffi- 
cient. Dickson  v.  Corbett,  11  Nev. 
277. 

Lot  in  City. — Under  Hill's  Code, 
3676,  giving  a  mechanic's  lien  on 
"any  lot  in  any  incorporated  city 
or  town"  for  grading,  filling  in,  or 
otherwise  improving  the  same, 
"or  the  street  in  front  of  or  ad- 
joining the  same,"  the  word  "lot" 
must  be  confined  to  property  so 
situated  as  to  have  impressed  on  , 
it  the  character  of  "urban,"  as 
distinguished  from  "rural,"  use, 
and  a  complaint  to  enforce  a  lien 
is  not  sufficient  which  describes 
the  property  improved  as  a 
"tract  of  10  acres  in  an  incor- 
porated city,"  Pilz  V.  Killings- 
worth,  20  Ore.  432,  26  Pac.  305. 

^  Smith  v.  Johnson,  2  Mac- 
Arthur,  (D.  C.)  481. 

s  Snow  V.  Council,  65  Ga.  123; 
Big  Blackfoot  Milling  Co.  v.  Blue 
Bird  Min.  Co.  19  Mont.  454,  48 
Pac.   778. 


573 


AVERMENT  OF  OWNERSHIP. 


[§238 


sale  of  so  much  thereof  as  is  properly  subject  to  the  lien.^  And 
it  has  been  held  sufficient  if  the  premises  upon  which  the  lien 
is  sought  to  be  foreclosed  is  described  in  an  exhibit,  attached 
to  and  made  a  part  of  the  petition. ^"^  It  is  sometimes  held 
sufficient  if  the  land  is  so  described  that  it  can  be  identified  by 
extrinsic  evidence. ^^ 

§  238.  Petition — Averment  of  ownership  and  description  of 
improvements. — The  petition  should  set  out  the  interests  of 
the  various  parties  in  the  premises  sought  to  be  foreclosed,  and 
if  enough  appears  to  disclose  the  rights  of  the  parties,  the  court 
will  adjust  such  rights.^  The  averments  must  be  such  that 
they  will  show  that  the  party  making  the  contract  had  such 
ownership  in  the  premises  as  rendered  it  subject  to  a  lien  un- 


9  Busfield  V.  Wheeler,  14  Allen 
(Mass.)  139;  Lyon  v.  Logan,  68 
Tex.  521,  5  S.  W.  72,  2  Am.  St. 
511. 

10  Matthews  v.  Monts,  61  S.  C. 
385,  39  S.  E.  575;  Richlands  Flint- 
Glass  Co.  V.  Hiltebeitel,  92  Va.  91, 
22  S.  E.  806.  Reference  to  con- 
tract. Murphy  v.  Guisti,  22  R.  I. 
588,  48  Atl.  944. 

11  O'Halloran  v.  Sullivan,  1  G. 
Greene,  (Iowa)  75.  In  a  petition 
for  a  mechanic's  lien,  the  land 
was  described  as  being  about 
three  acres,  lying  in  the  southeast 
corner  of  the  S.  W.  %  of  the  N. 
W.  ^/4  of  section  22,  in  Township 
15  N.,  range  10  W.  of  third  P.  M., 
and  the  petition  further  stated 
that  the  defendant  "is  now  own- 
ing and  in  possession  of  said  land, 
and  he  has  been  ever  since  the 
time  above  mentioned,  and  in  his 
own  right  is  now  holding,  and  has 
been  so  holding  from,"  etc.,  "under 
a  title  bond  or  a  bond  for  a  deed, 
to  and  for   said   land,   in   writing 


made  and  given  by  William  B. 
Warren."  Held,  that  as  circum- 
stances were  referred  to,  by 
which,  with  the  aid  of  extrinsic 
evidence,  the  premises  could  be 
precisely  located,  the  description 
was  sufRcient.  Quackenbush  v. 
Carson,  21  111.  99;  Seely  v.  Neill, 
37  Colo.  198,  86  Pac.  334;  Salter 
V.  Goldberg,   (Ala.)   43  So.  571. 

1  Illinois. — Henderson  v.  Con- 
nolly, 123  111.  98,  14  N.  E.  1,  5  Am. 
St.  490. 

Missouri. — McDermott  v.  Class, 
104  Mo.  14,  15  S.  W.  995;  Cole  v. 
Barron,  8  Mo.  App.  509.  Exhibit 
showed  ownership.  Matthews  v. 
Monts,  61  S.  Car.  385,  39  S.  E. 
575. 

Wisconsin. — Shaw  v.  Allen,  24 
Wis.  563.  Allegation  of  owner- 
ship in  general  terms.  Badger 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Muehlebach,  109 
Mo.  App.  646,  83  S.  W.  546.  Aver- 
ments not  sufficient  to  show  con- 
tract. McNicholas  v.  Tinsler, 
127  111.  App.  381. 


238] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


574 


der  the  statute. ^  If  an  answer  Avere  filed  admitting  owner- 
ship a  defective  averment  in  this  respect  would  be  waived.^ 
But  an  allegation  that  certain  parties  other  than  the  owner 
have  or  claim  to  have  some  interest  in  the  premises  is  not  an 
admission  that  they  had  any  interest.^  So  it  has  been  held 
that  an  allegation  that  a  certain  person  claims  an  interest  in 
the  premises  and  a  prayer  that  he  be  compelled  to  set  up  the 
same  or  be  barred,  will  not  be  sufificient  to  bar  his  claim,  unless 
there  is  a  further  allegation  that  the  plaintiff's  claim  is  superior 
to  tha  claim  of  such  person.^  An  averment  that  a  person  holds 
the  property  by  an  unrecorded  title  bond,  fraudulently  taken 
in  the  name  of  his  wife,  but  paid  for  by  him,  is  a  sufficient  alle- 
gation of  ownership.*^  If  only  a  personal  judgment  is  de- 
sired, then  as  a  matter  of  course  the  averment  of  ownership 


2  Indiana. — Adams  v.  Buhler, 
116  Ind.  100,  18  N.  E.  269. 

Massachusetts.  —  Simpson  v. 
Dalrymple,  11  Cush.   (Mass.)    308. 

Michigan. — Knapp  Electrical 
Works  V.  Mecosta  Electric  Co., 
110  Mich.  547,  68  N.  W.  245; 
Clark  V.  Raymond,  27  Mich.  456; 

Minnesota. — Nolander  v.  Burns, 
48  Minn.  13,  50  N.  W.  1016. 

Missouri. — Porter  v.  Tooke,  35 
Mo.  107.  An  allegation  that  de- 
fendant is  the  owner  of  certain 
"premises"  sufficiently  alleges 
the  ownership  of  the  buildings 
thereon.  Stone  v.  Taylor,  72  Mo. 
App.  482.  Defective.  Big  Black- 
foot  Milling  Co.  v.  Blue  Bird  Min. 
Co.,  19  Mont.  454,  48  Pac.  778.  A 
petition  which  alleges  that  plain- 
tiffs agreed  to  furnish  defend- 
ants with  the  labor  and  material 
necessary  to  the  construction  of 
a  building  "on  the  property  of  de- 
fendants,"    describing     it,     suffi- 


ciently alleges  that  defendants 
are  the  owners  of  the  property 
described.  Lignoski  v.  Crooker, 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.)  22  S.  W.  774. 
Allegations  so  as  to  charge  sepa- 
rate property  of  wife.  Willard  v. 
Magoon,  30  Mich.  273. 

3  Boude  V.  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  47  Iowa,  705;  Lyon  v. 
Logan,  68  Tex.  521,  5  S.  W.  72,  2 
Am.   St.   511. 

^  Orr  &c.  Hardware  Co.  v.  Need- 
ham  Co.,  51  111.  App.  57. 

->  Delahay  v.  Goldie,  17  Kan. 
263;  Steel  Brick  Siding  Co.  v. 
Muskegon  Machine  &  Foundry  Co., 
98  Mich.  616,  57  N.  W.  817;  Rust- 
Owen  Lumber  Co.  v.  Fitch,  3  S. 
Dak.  213,  52  N.  W.  879. 

0  Caldwell  v.  Asbury,  29  Ind. 
451;  Peck  v.  Hensley,  21  Ind.  344. 
Quasi  public  corporation  not  lia- 
ble. ^McNeal  Pipe  &  Foundry  Co. 
V.  Bullock,  38  Fed.  565. 


575 


AVERMENT   OF   SERVICES. 


239 


would  be  immaterial^  If  the  lien  is  sought  on  the  improve- 
ments separate  from  the  land,^  or  the  claims  of  dififerent  lien- 
holders  demand  a  separate  statement,'^  or  the  building  is  mere- 
ly appurtenant  to  some  other  building,  then  the  improvement 
upon  which  a  lien  is  sought  should  be  so  described  as  to  show 
its  situation  and  relation  to  other  improvements  to  bring  it 
within  the  lien-i*^ 

§  239.  Petition — Averment  of  rendition  of  services  or  fur- 
nishing of  material. — Whether  the  petition  must  contain  an 
allegation  that  the  services  or  materials  went  into  the  building 
sought  to  satisfy  the  lien/  or  were  merely  furnished  for  that 
purpose,^  will  depend  upon  the  dififerent  statutes  and  the  decisions 
thereunder.3  Some  statutes  require  that  it  be  shown  that 
they  were  furnished  for  and  used  in  the  building.^  If  the 
owner  is  sought  to  be  held  for  services  or  materials  furnished 
by  persons  other  than  the  general  contractor,  as  a  general 
rule  it  must  be  averred  that  such  services  or  materials  were 


7  Clark  V.  Maxwell,  12  Ind.  App. 
199,  40  N.  E.  274. 

8  Description  of  claims,  see 
§101. 

9  Jewell  V.  McKay,  82  Cal.  144, 
23  Pac.  139. 

10  Marshall  v.  Bank  of  Archie, 
76  Mo.  App.  92. 

1  Smith  V.  Newbaur,  144  Ind. 
95,  42  N.  E.  40,  1094,  33  L.  R.  A. 
685;  Ryndak  v.  Seawell,  13  Okla. 
737,  76  Pac.  170;  Arkansas  River 
Land,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Flinn,  3  Colo. 
App.  381,  33  Pac.  1006;  Cohn  v. 
Wright,  89  Cal.  86,  26  Pac.  643. 
An  allegation  in  the  complaint  to 
enforce  a  mechanic's  lien  that 
"said  firm  sold  and  delivered  N. 
certain  hardware  and  building 
material,  to  be  used  in  the  erec- 
tion and  construction  of  said 
building,  and  affixed  and  attached 


thereto,"  warrants  the  finding 
that  the  materials  were  used  in 
the  building.  Reed  v.  Norton,  90 
Cal.  590,  26  Pac.  767,  27  Pac.  426. 
A  complaint  alleging  that  plain- 
tiffs sold  material  "to  be  used"  in 
the  erection  of  a  certain  house, 
that  they  notified  defendant  that 
they  "were  furnishing"  the  ma- 
terial for  the  house,  and  that  a 
bill  of  particulars  of  the  material 
"so  furnished  and  used"  is  filed 
with  the  complaint,  sufficiently  al- 
leges that  the  material  was  used 
in  the  house.  Leeper  v.  Myers, 
10   Ind.   App.   314,   37   N.   E.    1070. 

2  Rail  V.  McCrary,  45  Mo.  App. 
365. 

•*  See  Description  of  Claim,  § 
109. 

4  Watrous  v.  Elmendorf,  55 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  461. 


§239] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


576 


used  in  the  structure  upon  which  a  lien  is  sought,^  or  that 
the  same  were  furnished  for  that  particular  purpose.^  In 
the  absence  of  a  specific  averment,  the  petition  will  be  suffi- 
cient if  so  worded  that  the  natural  inference  would  be  that  they 
were  furnished  for  the  building."  However,  the  failure  of 
such  an  averment  has  been  held  to  be  cured  by  an  averment 
in  the  answer  that  the  materials  w^ere  not  used  in  the  building, 
this  raising  the  issue. ^  Furthermore,  if  a  subcontractor  seeks 
to  hold  the  owner,  he  must  aver  that  the  work  and  materials 
were  such  as  will  actually  come  within  the  original  contract, 
between   the   owner  and   principal   contractor.^      In   any  case 


5  Booth  V.  Pendola,  88  Cal.  36, 
23  Pac.  200,  25  Pac.  1101;  Hill  v. 
Ryan,  54  Ind.  118;  Crawfordsville 
V.  Barr,  45  Ind.  258;  Teachout 
V.  City  of  Cleveland,  4  Ohio  Dec. 
376,  2  Cleve.  Law  Rep.   58. 

c  Indiana.— Neeley  v.  Searight, 
113  Ind.  316,  15  N.  E.  598;  Miller 
V.  Roseboom,  59  Ind.  345;  Craw- 
fordsville V.  Brundage,  57  Ind. 
262;  Crawford  v.  Crockett,  55 
Ind.  220;  Manor  v.  Heffner,  15 
Ind.  App.  299,  43  N.  E.  1011; 
Adamson  v.  Shaner,  3  Ind.  App. 
448,    29   N.    E.    944. 

Kansas. — Jarvis-Conklin  Mortg. 
Trust  Co.  V.  Sutton,  46  Kan.  166, 
26  Pac.  406.  A  complaint  alleging 
that  plaintiff  furnished  materials 
and  erected  a  house  on  defend- 
ant's land  under  contract  with 
her;  that  during  the  progress  of 
the  work  she  requested  plaintiff 
to  furnish  additional  material  and 
labor,  not  provided  for  in  the 
original  contract;  and  that  she 
was  present  while  the  house  was 
being  erected,  and  directed  the 
work,  and  agreed  to  pay  therefor, 
— sufficiently  alleges  that  the  ma- 


terials furnished  and  work  done 
were  of  the  kind  contracted  for, 
and  that  the  building  was  erected 
according  to  the  contract.  Vor- 
hees  V.  Beckwell,  10  Ind.  App. 
224,   37    N.   E.    811. 

'  Arkansas.  —  INIcaFdden  v. 
Stark,  58  Ark.  7,  22  S.  W.  884. 

>'ew  York.— D'Andre  v.  Zim- 
mermann,  17  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  357, 
39  N.  Y.  Supp.  1086;  Martin  v. 
Flahive,  112  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
347,   98   N.   Y.   Supp.   577. 

Minnesota. — Stewart  v.  Sim- 
mons, 101  Minn.  375,  112  N.  W. 
282. 

California. — Union  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Simon,  150  Cal.  751,  89  Pac. 
1077.  Judgment  modified,  89  Pac. 
1081. 

s  Grace  v.  Nesbit,  109  Mo.  9, 
IS   S.  W.  1118. 

f»  Broderick  v.  Poillon,  2  E.  D. 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  554.  A  complaint 
to  which  are  annexed  the  con- 
tract under  which  some  of  the 
articles  were  furnished,  and  a 
bill  of  particulars  of  the  other 
articles  and  services  for  which 
the  lien  is  claimed,  containing  an 


577 


AVERMENT  OF  CONTRACT. 


[§240 


where  it  is  sought  to  recover  for  extra  work,  an  averment 
to  this  effect  should  be  in  the  petition.^*'  An  averment 
showing  the  time  of  furnishing  the  materials  or  work,  under  al- 
most all  of  the  statutes,  is  a  material  one.^^  This  averment  is  es- 
sential as  showing  the  time  when  the  lien  attaches  as  well  as 
establishing  the  lien  itself,^-  or  its  priority  over  other  liens. ^^ 
An  averment  that  the  plaintiff  furnished  material  and  per- 
formed work  in  and  about  defendant's  mill,  will  be  held  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  the  work  was  done  by  an  original,  and  not 
a  subcontractor.^^ 

§  240.  Pleading — Averment  of  consent  or  contract  with  the 
owner. — The  petition  must  have  an  averment  that  the  material 
or  labor  was  furnished  by  agreement  or  with  consent  of  the 


aggregate  charge  for  the  articles 
furnished  under  the  contract, 
with  a  reference  to  the  contract, 
is  definite  enough.  Barnes  v. 
Stacy,  73  Wis.  1,  40  N.  W.  615. 
Contra.  Oilman  v.  Gard,  29  Ind. 
291. 

10  Smith  V.  Van  Hoose,  110  Ga. 
633,  36  S.  E.  77;  Sweeney  v.  Mey- 
er,  124  Cal.  512,   57   Pac.  479. 

11  See  §113.  McCrea  v.  Craig, 
23  Cal.  522;  Bradish  v.  James,  83 
Mo.  313;  Seaman  v.  Paddock,  51 
Mo.  App.  465;  Willamette  Falls 
Trans.,  &c.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  1  Ore. 
171. 

12  Minnesota,  —  Frankoviz  v. 
Smith,  34  Minn.  403,  26  N.  W.  225. 

Missouri. — Cantwell  v.  Mass- 
man,  45  Mo.  103;  Peck  v.  Brid- 
well,  10  Mo.  App.  524. 

New  York. — Jaques  v.  Morris,  2 
E.  D.  Smith   (N.  Y.)    639. 

South  Dakota,  —  Rust-Owen 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Fitch,  3  S.  Dak. 
213,  52  N.  W.  879. 


Washington. — Seattle  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Sweeney,  33  Wash.  691,  74 
Pac.  1001.  Where  a  complaint  al- 
leges that  petitioners  delivered 
materials  to  defendant  during  the 
months  of  January,  February 
and  March,  it  shows  with  reason- 
able certainty  that  the  last  of  the 
materials  were  furnished  in 
INIarch.  Matthews  v.  Monts,  61  S. 
Car.  385,  39  S.  E.  575. 

1-5  Jeffersonville  Water  Supply 
Co.  V.  Riter,  138  Ind.  170,  37  N. 
E.    652. 

1^  Christian-Craft  Grocery  Co. 
V.  Kling,  121  Ala.  292,  25  So.  629. 
Matters  of  defense  need  not  be 
set  up.  Colorado.  Iron  Works  v. 
Taylor,  12  Colo.  App.  451,  55  Pac. 
942.  Allegation  sufficient  to  bind 
both  purchaser  and  seller.  Bogue 
V.  Guthe,  54  Neb.  236,  54  N.  W. 
588.  Allegation  sufficient  to  show 
for  whose  immediate  use  mater- 
ials were  furnished.  Williamson 
V.  Shank  (Ind.  App.),  83  N.  E. 
641. 


37 


240] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


578 


owner, 1  as  this  is  the  basis  of  the  right  to  a  lien.^ 
This  may  be  alleged  in  general  terms. ^  However,  if  the 
statute  makes  the  owner  liable  without  a  direct  contract 
with  the  owner,  then  this  averment  may  be  omitted,  but  it 
must  be  alleged  that  there  was  a  contract  upon  the  part  of 
the  owner  with  some  one  to  furnish  such  labor  or  materials.* 
The  fact  that  the  petition  avers  that  material  was  furnished 
to  two  persons,  will  not  render  it  demurrable,^  but  it  may 
be  if  the  charge  is  so  ambiguous  that  it  can  not  be  discerned 
who   was  attempted  to  be  charged.*^     If  the    wife    is    under 


1  Kerwin  v.  Post,  120  App.  Div. 
(X.  Y.)  179,  104  N.  y.  Supp.  1005. 
See  ante.,  §  78. 

Illinois. — Leslie  v.  Reed,  107 
111.  App.  248;  Baxter  v.  Hutch- 
ings,   49    111.   116. 

Massacliusetts.  —  Batchelder  v. 
Hutchinson,  161  Mass.  462,  37  X. 
E.  452. 

Miuuesota.— O'Xeil  v.  St.  Olaf's 
School,  26  Minn.  329,  4  X.  W.  47. 
'»w  Haiiipsliire. — Pike  v.  Scott, 
60   X.   H.   469. 

New  York. — Clapper  v.  Strong, 
41  Misc.  (X.  Y.)  184,  S3  X.  Y. 
Supp.  935;  Kerwin  v.  Post,  120 
App.  Div.  (X.  Y.)  179.  104  X.  Y. 
Supp.  1005. 

Ohio. — Spinning  v.  Blackburn, 
13  Ohio  St.  131;  United  States 
:Mortgage,  fee,  Co.  v.  Wood,  19 
Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  358,  10  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.  324. 

Oregon. — Wilcox  v.  Keith,  3 
Ore.  372. 

Pennsylvania. — Dearie  v.  ;Mar- 
tin,   78   Pa.   St.   55. 

Texas. — :Mooris  v.  Montgomery, 
2  Posey   (Tex.)   Unrep.  Cas.  385. 

^Vasliingtou. — Griffith  v.  :m  ax- 
well,   20   Wash.   403,   55   Pac.   571. 


2  McFadden  v.  Stark,  58  Ark.  7, 
22   S.   W.   884;      Parker     v.     Bell 

7  Gray  (Mass.),  429;  Keller  v. 
Struck,  31  Minn.  446,  18  X.  W. 
280;  Griggs  v.  Le  Poidevin,  11 
Xeb.  385,  9  X.  W.  557.  Where 
the  lien  statement  shows  such 
contract,  and  is  made  a  part  of 
the  petition,  this  is  sufficient. 
Jarvis-Conklin  Mortg.  Trust  Co. 
v.  Sutton,  46  Kan.  166,  26  Pac. 
406.  A  subcontractor's  petition 
that  alleges  that  A.  was  the 
owner  and  B.  the  original  con- 
tractor will  be  regarded  after  ver- 
dict as  sufficiently  alleging  that 
the  original  contract  was  made 
with  the  owner.     Cole  v.  Barron, 

8  Mo.  App.  509.  It  must  at 
least  be  so  by  implication. 
Peck  V.  Bridwell,  6  Mo.  App.  451. 

3  Tisdale  v.  Alabama  &  G.  Lum- 
ber Co.,  131  Ala.  456,  31  So.  729. 

■i  :\IcFadden  v.  Stark,  58  Ark.  7, 
22  S.  W.  884;  Yancy  v.  Morton, 
94  Cal.  558,  29  Pac.  1111;  Mc- 
Laughlin V.  Schawacker,  31  Mo. 
App.  365. 

5  Roach   V.   Chapin,   27   111.    194. 

6  Palmer  v.  Lavigne,  104  Cal. 
30.    37    Pac.    775. 


579  AVERMENT  OF  CONTRACT.  [§  240 

a  common  law  disability,  then  it  will  be  necessary  to  aver  that 
the  building  was  a  necessary  thing  for  the  proper  use  of  the 
premises.^  If  the  lien  is  claimed  against  the  owner  for  work 
done  for  a  lessee,  facts  must  be  pleaded  which  will  show  that 
the  owner  has  agreed  to  the  same,  either  by  contract  or  other- 
wise.^ In  addition  to  averring  that  the  work  was  done  by 
agreement  or  consent  of  the  owner,  the  terms  of  the  contract 
must  be  set  out.  Especially  is  this  true  if  the  statute  fixes 
a  time  depending  upon  the  contract  when  the  lien 
will  expire.^  So  there  should  be  an  averment  as  to 
the  time  of  payment, ^"^  and  when  the  work  was  to  be  per- 
formed.^i  A  subcontractor  in  his  petition  should  aver  and 
show  that  by  his  contract  with  the  principal  contractor  he 
is  within  the  terms  of  the  principal  contract.^-  If  no  state- 
ment is  made,  under  the  rule  that  a  pleading  is  to  be  taken 
more  strongly  against  the  pleader,  it  may  be  inferred  that  the 
materials  were  not  furnished  within  the  required  time  and 
under  the  original  contract. ^^  The  pleader  may  on  motion 
be  required  to  state  the  terms  of  the  original  contract.^ ^ 

"  Shilling  V.  Templeton,  66  Ind.  Columbus  Mach.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Dor- 

585;     Lindley    v.    Cross,    31    Ind.  win,  25  111.  153. 

106,   99   Am.    Dec.    610.  12  Thomas    v.    Trustees    of   Illi- 

s  Ross   V.    Simon,    16    Daly    (N.  nois  Industrial  University,  71  111. 

Y.)    159,  9  N.  Y.  Supp.  536,  10  N.  310;    Broderick    v.    Boyle,    1    Abb. 

Y.   Supp.    742.  Pr.    (N.    Y.)    319. 

'J  Illinois. — Belanger    v.    Hersey,  i3  Rogers  v.  Powell,  1  111.  App. 

90    111.    70;    Rowley  v.    James,    31  631. 

111.  298;    Roach  v.  Chapin,  27  111.  11  Broderick    v.    Boyle,    1    Abb. 

194;    Burkhardt  v.   Reisig,  24   111.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)      319.       Under     some 

530;    McClurken  v.  Logan,  23  111.  statutes  it  is  sufficient  if  the  com- 

77;  Senior  V.  Brebnor,  22  111.  252;  plaint    shows    when    the    debt    is 

Cook  V.  Rofinot,  21  111.  437;  Cook  due.      Gillespie   v.    Remington,    66 

V.  Heald,  21  111.  425.  Tex.  108,  18  S.  W.  338.     Facts  in- 

10  Reed  v.  Boyd,  84  111.  66;  eluded  in  statement  need  not  be 
Phillips  V.  Stone,  25  111.  66;  set  out  in  detail  in  the  petition. 
Brady  v.  Anderson,  24  111.  111.  McGeever     v.     Harris,     148     Ala. 

11  Brown  v.  Lowell,  79  111.  484;  503,  41  So.  930. 


241 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


580 


§  241.  Petition  stating  contract — Completion  of  work. — 
Where  the  statute  requires  that  the  contract  under  which 
a  Hen  is  claimed  is  to  be  set  out  in  the  petition/  it  is  not 
sufficient  to  set  out  a  note  alleging  that  it  was  given  for  the 
work  done.2  In  such  cases,  it  should  be  set  out  by  attached 
copies,  but  it  has  been  held  sufficient  if  its  terms  are  sub- 
stantially given  ;^  especially  is  this  true  after  verdict  when 
no  demurrer  had  been  filed.'*  If  there  is  a  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  contract  attached  as  an  exhibit  and  that 
described  in  the  petition,  the  exhibit  will  control.^ 
As  a  matter  of  course  in  order  that  the  record  may 
not  be  needlessly  encumbered  if  the  contract  is  set 
forth  in  any  prior  pleading,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  refer 
to  it  and  it  need  not  be  repeated.*'  Where  the  statute  so  re- 
quires, it  must  be  stated  in  the  pleading  whether  or  not  the 
contract  was  in  writing,  and  if  so  give  a  copy.'''  But 
no  party  can  by  motion  strike  out  any  averment  of  a  pleading, 
unless  its  remaining  would  work  to  his  prejudice.^  As  the 
obligation  to  pay  does  not  mature  until  the  contract  is  per- 
formed, it  is  as  a  matter  of  course  essential  to  aver  that 
such  work  has  been  completed  and  the  contract  performed.^ 


1  See  setting  out  claim,  ante.,  § 
111.  Stephenson  v.  Ballard,  50 
Ind.    176. 

2  Smith  V.  Central  Lumber  Co., 
113  111.  App.  477;  Logan  v.  Dun- 
lap,  4  111.  188;  Logan  v.  Attix,  7 
Iowa  77. 

3  Simpson  v.  Dalrymple,  11 
Cush.    (Mass.)    308. 

4Edleman  v.  Kidd,  65  Wis.  18, 
26    N.    W.    116. 

5  Benner  v.  Schmidt,  44  111. 
App.  304. 

6  Parmenter  v.  Childs,  12  Iowa 
22. 

"  Summerman    v.    Knowles,    33 


N.   J.  L.   202;    Bangs   v.   Berg,   82 
Iowa  350,  48  N.   W.   90. 

8  See  §  111 

9  Robinson  v.  Chinese  Charit- 
able &  Benevolent  Ass'n,  47  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  69,  62  N.  Y.  Supp. 
292;  Kirn  v.  Champion  Iron 
Fence  Co.,  86  Va.  608,  *10  S.  E. 
885.  Agreement  to  pay  upon  com- 
pletion is  implied,  if  no  other 
agreement  is  shown.  Burkhart  v. 
Reisig,  24  111.  529.  Where  a  con- 
tract has  not  been  completed,  the 
claimant  must  aver  that  the  own- 
er prevented  performance.  Rob- 
inson V.  Davis,  8  Del.  Co.  Ct.  237. 


581 


PLEADING COMPLETION    OF    WORK. 


241 


Where  a  subcontractor  brings  an  action  and  does  not  set  out 
the  terms  of  the  contract  of  the  principal  contractor,  or  that 
the  conditions  making  the  owner  liable  have  been  complied 
with,  his  pleading  is  defective. ^^  When  the  statute  fixes 
the  completion  of  the  work  as  the  time  when  the  lien  be- 
gins, or  the  time  begins  to  run  as  to  its  enforcement,  this 
is  a  material  fact  and  must  be  alleged.^  ^  The  petition  should 
contain  an  averment  as  to  the  amount  due  so  that  in  case 
the  property  was  sold  it  will  be  known  what  portion  of  the 
proceeds  should  be  applied  on  the  claim  set  up  in  the  peti- 
tion.^2  As  the  debt  is  the  foundation  of  the  lien,  if  there  is 
no  debt,  there  is  no  lien,  and  hence  whether  the  subcontractor 


10  Thomas  v.  Trustees  of  Illi- 
nois Industrial  University,  71  111. 
310;  Kinney  v.  Sherman,  28  111. 
520. 

11  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  San 
Diego  Flume  Co.,  78  Cal.  193,  20 
Pac.  419;  Winkle  Terra  Cotta  Co. 
V.  Galena  Safety  Vault,  &c.,  Co.,  ei 
111.  App.  184;  Kinney  v.  Sherman, 
28  111.  520.  In  an  action  to  enforce 
a  mechanic's  lien,  a  complaint  al- 
leging the  completion  of  the 
building  "on  or  about"  a  certain 
time,  and  further  alleging  that 
the  claim  of  lien  was  filed  within 
30  days  after  such  completion,  is 
not  demurrable  for  failure  to  al- 
lege more  specifically  the  date  of 
the  completion  of  the  building. 
Wood  V.  Oakland,  &c.,  Rapid 
Transit  Co.,  107  Cal.  500,  40  Pac. 
806.  Again,  the  petition  should 
have  averred  a  time  when  the 
contract  was  to  be  performed  by 
the  agreement,  and  the  time 
when  the  money  was  to  be  paid, 
within  the  times  severally  limited 
by  the  act,  as  these  facts  are  ma- 


terial to  a  proper  understanding, 
by  the  court,  of  the  rights  of  the 
parties.  Logan  v.  Dunlap,  4  111. 
188.  And  on  the  hearing,  these 
allegations  should  be  proved  as 
averred,  to  entitle  the  party  to  a 
decree.  Unless  they  are  alleged, 
other  parties  are  not  apprised  of 
the  ground  of  recovery,  and  the 
court  is  unable  to  determine 
whether  the  labor  was  performed, 
the  materials  furnished,  or  the 
money  was  to  be  paid  within  the 
time  prescribed,  and  whether  the 
proceeding  is  commenced  within 
six  months  after  the  last  payment 
has  become  due.  Cook  v.  Heald, 
21   111.   425. 

12  See  averments  in  claim  or 
statement,  §  113.  Webb  v.  Kuns 
(Cal.),  54  Pac.  78.  A  complaint 
to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien 
which  alleges  the  furnishing  of 
materials  at  an  agreed  price  is 
sufficient,  prima  facie,  as  alleging 
the  value  thereof.  Bringham  v. 
Knox,  127  Cal.  40,  59  Pac.  198. 
An  averment  that  the  amount  due 


§242] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


582 


need  allege  that  there  is  anything  due  from  the  owner  to  the 
contractor  will  depend  upon  the  fact  whether  the  owner  is 
liable  regardless  of  this  fact,  and  if  not  it  should  be 
averred. ^^ 

§  242.  Petition  of  subcontractor. — It  is  a  general  rule  that 
when  the  person  filing  the  complaint  is  a  subcontractor  he 
must  aver  facts  that  will  bring  him  within  the  statute  and 
must  show  that  at  the  time  his  lien  right  attached  or  existed/ 
the  owner  was  indebted  to  the  principal  contractor  under  and 
by  virtue  of  the  terms  of  the  principal  contract.^  The  allega- 
tion as  to  the  amount  due  will  be  sufficient  if  it  shows  that  the 
amount  was  large  enough  to  cover  the  subcontractor's  claim 
without  stating  the  exact  sum,-^  and  the  petition  will  be  suffi- 
cient on  demurrer  if  this  fact  appears  by  inference.^  If  an 
answer  should  be  filed  admitting  that  a  sufficient  sum  is  due, 
then  this  defect  is  cured.-^     As  a  general  rule  this  is  not  a 


petitioners  for  work,  material  and 
labor  is  the  sum  of  $13,248.94. 
upon  which  has  been  paid  the 
sum  of  $6,550.02,  leaving  a  bal- 
ance due  according  to  the  agree- 
ment, of  $6,705.92,  and  interest 
thereon,  according  to  a  bill  rend- 
ered, and  approved  as  correct  by 
the  defendant,  is  sufficient.  Reed 
V.  Boyd,  84  111.  66.  An  averment 
that  a  notice  of  a  lien  to  a  cer- 
tain amount  was  filed,  is  not 
equivalent  to  an  averment  that 
that  or  any  other  amount  was 
due.  Crawfordsville  v.  Irwin,  46 
Ind.  438. 

13  Merritt  v.  Pearson,  58  Ind. 
385;  Norfolk,  &c.,  R.  Co.  v.  Howi- 
son,   81  Va.   125. 

iLawton  v.  Case,  73  Ind.  60; 
Dart  V.  Fitch,  23  Hun  (N.  Y.)  361; 


Fullenwider  v.  Longmoor,  73  Tex. 
480,  11  S.  W.  500;  Teahen  v.  Nel- 
son, 6  Utah  363,  23  Pac.  764. 

2  Epley  V.  Scherer,  5  Colo.  536; 
Breuchaud  v.  New  York,  61  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  564,  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  347; 
Doughty  V.  Devlin,  1  E.  D.  Smith 
(N.  Y.)  625;  McNeal  Pipe  & 
Foundry  Co.  v.  Bullock,  38  Fed. 
565. 

3  Green  v.   Clifford,   94   Cal.   49, 

29  Pac.  331;  Thomas  v.  Trustees 
of  Illinois  Industrial  University, 
71  111.  310;  Watkins  v.  Shaw,  7 
Ohio  C.  C.  415. 

4  Ditto  V.  Jackson,  3  Colo.  App. 
281,  33  Pac.  81;  Parsley  v.  David, 
106  N.  Car.  225,  10  S.  E.  1028. 

5  Spangler  v.  Green,  21  Colo. 
505,  42  Pac.  674,  52  Am.  St.  259; 
Mills    V.    Paul    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

30  S.  W.   558. 


583  PETITION   OF  SUBCONTRACTOR.  [§  243 

question  to  be  raised  by  the  contractor,  but  by  the  owner." 
But  the  better  doctrine  is  that  since  the  contractor's  claim 
is  reduced  by  whatever  the  subcontractor  may  recover,  there- 
fore he  can  raise  the  question  as  well  as  the  owner.^  How- 
ever if  the  statute  makes  the  owner  directly  responsible,'^  or  if 
the  owner  by  his  own  act  makes  himself  directly  responsible, 
some  courts  have  held  that  no  averment  as  to  the  amount 
due  the  contractor  is  needed. ^*^  But  the  better  doctrine  is 
that  in  all  cases,  especially  where  the  amount  claimed  by  the 
subcontractor  affects  the  amount  due  the  contractor,  that 
this  amount  should  be  stated. ^^ 

§  243.     Petition — Itemized   statement — Notice   to   owner. — 

Unless  the  contract  makes  the  services  rendered  or  materials 
a  lump  job  for  a  specified  sum,^  an  itemized  statement  of 
the  labor  or  materials  furnished  should  be  set  out  in  the 
petition,  or  in  some  way  referred  to  so  as  to  give  the  defend- 
ant full  knowledge  as  to  the  labor  or  materials  furnished  for 
which  pay  is  claimed.^  Under  some  statutes  where  the  per- 
son is  required  to  file  an  itemized  statement  with  the  clerk 
of  the  county,  it  is  held  that  such  statement  need  not  be  filed 

"  Drennan     v.     New     York,     14  2  Colllni     v.     Nicolson,    51    Ga. 

Misc.   (N.  Y.)   112,  35  N.  Y.  Supp.  560;     McLaughlin    v.    Shaughnes- 

244.  sey,    42    Miss.     520;     Hassett     v. 

s  Scerbo  v.  Smith,  16  Misc.   (N.  Rust,  64  Mo.  325.     A  bill  of  par- 

Y.)    102,  38  N.  Y.  Supp.  570.  ticulars  attached  to  a  petition  for 

'•>  Roanoke  Land  &  Imp.   Co.  v.  foreclosure  of  a  lien  for  material, 

Karn,  80  Va.  589.  dated  "Ballinger,  Tex.,"   and  set- 

10  Harris  v.  Harris,  18  Colo,  ting  forth,  "Mr.  W.  M.  Koger,  on 
App.  34,  69  Pac.  309;  Doyle  v.  lot  4,  Block  11,  First  addition  to 
Munster,  27  111.  App.  130.  Ball,  bought  of  J.  W.  Webb,  deal- 

11  Kloeppinger  v.  Crasser,  25  er  in  dressed  lumber,  etc.,"  fol- 
Ohio  C.   C.   90.  lowed   by   an   itemized   statement 

1  See    itemized   claim   or   state-  of  the  kind,  size,  and  value  of  the 

ment    of    lien,    §  116.      Menzel    v.  lumber,  and  made  out  in  the  form 

Tubbs,  51  Minn.  364,  53  N.  W.  653,  generally  used  by  such  dealers  is 

1017,    17    L.    R.    A.    815;    Lignoski  sufficiently  intelligible.      Webb    v. 

V.    Crooker    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    22  Koger,  78  Tex.  1,  14  S.  W.  238. 
S.    W.   774. 


§243] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


584 


with  the  petition.^  If  the  statute  requires  that  the  claim  be 
recorded  before  it  becomes  effective,  then  if  the  petition  does 
not  aver  that  it  has  been  so  recorded,  it  is  defective. '^  Gen- 
erally, however,  such  questions  must  be  raised  before  trial.^ 
In  states  that  require  notice  to  have  been  given  to  the  owner, 
a  petition  that  does  not  state  such  fact  is  defective.*^  A  sub- 
stantial compliance  in  this  respect,  however,  is  all  that  is 
required.'^  A  description  of  the  notice  in  general  terms  with 
reference  to  the  place  of  its  record  is  held  sufficient.^  The 
fact  that  an  exhibit  is  attached  to  the  petition  showing  such 
fact  is  not  sufficient  unless  the  exhibit  is  in  some  way  made  a 


3  Wood  V.  King,  57  Ark.  284,  21 
S.  W.   471. 

■i  Sedgwick  v.  Patterson,  2 
Posey    Unrep.    Cas.    (Tex.)    352. 

5  Norcott  V.  First  Baptist 
Church  of  Rome,  8  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
639;  Brown  v.  Wood,  2  Hilt.  (N. 
Y.)   579. 

G  Adams  v.  Shaffer,  132  Ind.  331, 
31  N.  E.  1108;  Heltzell  v.  Hynes, 
35  Mo.  482.  Not  required  when 
owner  is  directly  responsible. 
School  Town  of  Princeton  v.  Geb- 
hart,  61  Ind.  187.  Not  required  if 
the  fact  of  such  notice  is  not 
foundation  of  action.  Irwin  v. 
Crawfordsville,  58  Ind.  492.  Is  a 
jurisdictional  matter.  Hewitt  v. 
Truitt,  23  Mo.  App.  443.  Espe- 
cially is  allegation  and  proof  of 
such  notice  required  where  a  sub- 
contractor intervenes  and  seeks 
to  be  subrogated  to  the  rights 
of  the  principal  contractor,  by 
reason  of  collusion,  or  insolvency 
of  the  parties.  Pool  v.  Sanford, 
52  Tex.  621.  See  necessity  of 
averring  statement,  §  56.  Pay- 
ments prior  to  notice,  §  67. 

"  Tisdale  v.  Alabama,  &c..  Lum- 


ber Co.,  131  Ala.  456,  31  So.  729; 
Munster  v.  Doyle,  50  111.  App.  672. 
Where  the  complaint  states  the 
general  character  of  the  mate- 
rials furnished,  and  their  price, 
and  then  avers  that  plaintiff  gave 
the  owner  written  notice  of  the 
agreement  to  furnish  the  mate- 
rials "as  aforesaid,"  it  is  suffi- 
ciently alleged  that  a  notice  was 
given  and  was  sufficient  under 
Code  Civ.  Proc.  1184,  requiring 
that  it  state  the  amount  and 
value  of  the  materials.  Russ 
Lumber  &  Mill  Co.  v.  Garrettson, 
87  Cal.  589,  25  Pac.  747;  McDon- 
nell V.  Nicholson,  67  Mo.  App. 
408.  It  may  appear  inferentially 
that  the  subcontractor's  notice 
was  seasonably  received  by  the 
owner.  ^Miller  v.  Hoffman,  26 
Mo.  App.  199. 

J^  It  is  true,  as  appellants  insist, 
that  merely  filing  an  instrument 
is  not  making  it  an  exhibit  with- 
in the  meaning  of  the  law;  there 
must  be  some  identification  of  it 
by  appropriate  reference.  Peoria 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Walser,  22  Ind.  73; 
Stafford  v.  Davidson,  47  Ind.  319. 


585 


STATEMENT  OF  CLAIM. 


[§244 


part  of  the  petition.''  An  averment  of  the  notice  of  lis  pendens 
where  such  fact  afit'ects  the  claim  of  the  petitioner,  must  appear 
in  the  petition. ^^^  ^Matters  of  defense  should  not  be  averred 
in  the  petition. ^^ 

§  244.  Petition — Statement  as  to  claim — ^Jointly  where  made 
— Verification. — Whatever  the  statute  requires  to  be  alleged, 
must  be  averred  in  the  petition, ^  if  not,  it  is  subject  to  a  de- 
murrer.    It   must  also   show   that   required   statements   were 


We  do  not  understand  that  any 
particular  form  of  reference  is 
essential;  it  is  sufficient  if  the 
complaint  identifies  the  instru- 
ment with  reasonable  identity. 
Reed  v.  Broadbelt,  68  Ind.  91; 
Friddle  v.  Crane,  68  Ind.  58.3.  The 
plaintiff  is  not  confined  to  the 
formula,  "herewith  filed  and 
made  an  exhibit  of  this  com- 
plaint." Words  of  like  import 
will  be  sufficient.  Mercer  v. 
Hebert,  41  Ind.  459;  McCarty  v. 
Burnet,   84    Ind.   23. 

9  The  notice  of  the  pendency 
of  an  action  to  foreclose  a  me- 
chanic's lien,  which  acted  as  a  lis 
pendens  on  the  property,  should 
not  be  cancelled  after  judgment, 
where  the  time  to  appeal  from 
the  judgment  has  not  expired; 
such  relief  not  being  within  Code 
Civ.  Proc.  1674,  providing  as  to 
the  conditions  under  which  such 
notice  may  be  cancelled.  A  court 
has  no  general  power,  irrespect- 
ive of  statute,  to  discharge  a  no- 
tice of  lis  pendens  filed  in  a 
mechanic's  lien  case.  ]\Iadden  v. 
Lennon,  23  Misc.  (X.  Y.)  79,  50 
N.  Y.  Supp.  690. 

10  John  Paul  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Hormel,    61   Minn.   303,   63   N.   W. 


718;   Pool  V.  Sanford,  52  Tex.  621. 

11  West  Coast  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Newkirlf,  80  Cal.  275,  22  Pac.  231; 
Summerlin  v.  Thompson,  31  Fla. 
369,  12  So.  667;  R.  C.  Wilder's 
Sons  Co.  V.  Walker,  98  Ga.  508;  25 
S.  E.  571;  Porteous  v.  Holmes,  33 
111.  App.  312.  The  fact  that  a 
material  man  gave  credit  solely 
to  the  contractor,  and  agreed  to 
waive  his  right  to  a  lien,  are 
matters  of  defense,  and  need  not 
be  negatived  in  an  action  to  es- 
tablish a  mechanic's  lien  as  part 
of  plaintiffs  main  case.  Dough- 
erty V.  Loebelenz,  9  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.   344,  43  W.  N.  C.    (Pa.)    447. 

1  Pilz  V.  Killingsworth,  20  Ore. 
432,  26  Pac.  305.  In  actions  by 
which  it  is  sought  to  declare  and 
enforce  the  lien  given  by  statute 
to  mechanics,  material  men,  and 
the  like,  every  fact  necessary  to 
the  creation  of  the  lien  must  be 
alleged  and  proved.  This  is  the 
general  rule  of  pleading,  which  is 
applied  with  much  strictness  to 
this  class  of  actions.  Phil.  Mech. 
Liens,  402  et  seq.;  Globe  Iron 
Roofing,  &c.,  Co.  V.  Thacher,  87 
Ala.  458,  6  So.  366;  Cook  v.  Rome 
Brick  Co.,  98  Ala.  409,  12  So.  918. 


§244] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


586 


filed  within  the  required  time,-  and  that  they  were  such  as  the 
law  required,^  and  were  filed  where  required.^  If  the  statement 
sets   forth  in   detail   what   is   required,   the   averments  of  the 


2  Arkansas. — Arkansas  Cent  R. 
Co.  V.  McKay.  30  Ark.  682. 

Indiana. — JefEersonville  Water 
Supply  Co.  V.  Riter,  138  Ind.  170, 
37  N.  E.  652;  Davis  v.  McMillan, 
13  Ind.  App.  424,  41  N.  E.  851. 

New  York. — Hallagan  v.  Her- 
bert, 2  Daly   (N.  Y.)   2-53. 

South  Dakota,  —  Rust  -  Owen 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Fitch,  3  S.  Dak. 
213,  52  N.  W.  879. 

Virginia,  —  Richlands  Flint 
Glass  Co.  V.  Hiltebeitel,  92  Va.  91. 
22  S.  E.  806.  The  complaint  al- 
leges that  the  lien  statement  was 
filed  on  the  4th  day  of  March, 
1890,  and  that  the  material  and 
machinery  were  furnished  "be- 
tween the  7th  day  of  November, 
1889,  and  the  5th  day  of  Decem- 
ber, 1889,  both  dates  inclusive." 
This  may  have  been  done  and 
completed  long  prior  to  Decem- 
ber 5th,  and  more  than  90  days 
before  March  4th,  in  which  case 
the  filing  on  that  day  would  have 
been  too  late.  Hurlbert  v.  New 
Ulm  Basket  Works,  47  :\Iinn.  81, 
49  N.  W.  521.  A  complaint  must 
show  that  the  notice  of  lien  was 
filed  within  60  days  after  the 
completion  of  the  building.  An 
averment  that  the  notice  was 
filed  within  60  days  after  the 
money  was  to  have  been  paid  is 
insufficient.  Crawfordsville  v. 
Irwin,  46  Ind.  438.  Completion 
of  building.  Crawfordsville  v. 
Barr.  45  Ind.  258.  A  complaint 
which  alleges  that  the  labor  was 


performed  "during  the  years  of 
1892  and  1893,"  and  that  the 
statement  of  the  lien  was  filed 
"November  6,  1893,"  is  sufficient 
to  show  that  the  statement  was 
filed  within  90  days  after  the  la- 
bor was  performed.  J.  D.  Moran 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Clarke,  59  Minn.  456, 
61    N.   W.    556. 

s  Hicks  V.  Murray,  43  Cal.  51-"). 
Legal  conclusions  must  not  be 
stated.  Price  v.  Doyle,  34  Minn. 
400,  26  N.  W.  14.  Facts  must  be 
stated,  not  conclusions.  Kechler 
V.  Stumme,  4  Jones  &  Sp.  337, 
(36    N.    Y.    Super). 

■i  Illinoi's. — Rittenhouse  v.  Sa- 
ble, 43  111.  App.  558;  Boals  v.  In- 
trup,  40  111.  App.   62. 

Missonri. — Gault  v.  Soldani,  34 
Mo.  150;  Twitchell  v.  Devens,  45 
Mo.  App.  283;  Heltzell  v.  Lang- 
ford,  33  Mo.  396. 

AVisoousin. — Wright  v.  Allen,  26 
Wis.  661.  Clerical  error  will  not 
defeat.  Edleman  v.  Kidd.  65  Wis. 
18,  26  N.  W.  116.  A  general  alle- 
gation that  the  claim  was  filed  is 
sufficient.  Watrous  v.  Elmendorf, 
55  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  461.  Only  such 
persons  can  raise  the  question 
as  are  affected  by  it.  Keating  v. 
Worthington,  11  Ohio  Dec.  (Re.) 
428,  27  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  (Ohio)  14. 
An  allegation,  in  a  complaint  to 
enforce  a  mechanic's  lien,  that 
the  notice  of  intention  was  filed 
in  the  recorder's  office  on  a  cer- 
tain day.  is  a  sufficient  allegation 
that   the   notice   was   received   by 


587 


JOINDER    OF    CLAIMS. 


[§244 


petition  should  substantially  follow  these  details.-'  But  in  this 
respect  a  prescribed  form  need  not  be  followed.*^  As  here- 
inbefore stated,  unless  lien  claimants  are  all  interested  in  the 
subject  matter  of  the  action  in  such  a  way  as  to  give  them 
a  joint  right  of  action,  generally  they  can  not  join  in  the 
petition.'^  If  the  same  party  had  a  claim  arising  under  dif- 
ferent contracts,  he  could  join  them  all  in  one  proceeding. 
They  should,  however,  be  separately  stated  and  numbered.^ 
The  matter  of  joinder  is  largely  controlled  by  statutes ;  some 
permit  it  and  others  forbid,^  with  frequent  changes  in 
this    respect.io     As    a    general    rule,    all    pleadings    must    be 


the  recorder  on  that  day.  Car- 
riger  v.  Mackey,  15  Ind.  App.  392, 
44  N.  E.  266. 

5  Schillinger  Fire  Proof  Ce- 
ment, &c.,  Co.  V.  Arnott,  14  N.  Y. 
Supp.  326;  Dean  v.  Wheeler,  2 
Wis.  224.  Sufficient  after  judg- 
ment. Hubbard  v.  Moore,  132 
Ind.    178,    31    N.   E.    .534. 

6  Glass  V.  St.  Paul  Park  Car- 
riage, &c.,  Co.,  43  Minn.  22S,  45  N. 
W.  150. 

"  See  joinder  of  liens  in  same 
proceedings,  ante,  §  204.  Tram- 
mell  V.  Hudmon,  86  Ala.  472,  6 
So.  4;  Ricker  v.  Schadt,  5  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  460,  23  S.  W.  907; 
Getchell  v.  Moran,  124  Mass.  404. 

Fraudulent  Couveyance.  —  In 
proceedings  to  foreclose  a  me- 
chanic's lien,  other  persons  than 
the  one  against  whom  the  claim 
was  filed  as  owner  were  made 
partes  defendant,  on  the  ground 
that  conveyances  by  and  to  them, 
of  the  premises,  were  fraudulent- 
ly made  to  defeat  plaintilT's 
claim.  The  complaint  asked  to 
have  such  conveyances  declared 
void.      The    complaint    set    forth 


only  one  cause  of  action,  and  was 
not  demurrable.  Tisdale  v. 
Moore,    8   Hun    (N.   Y.)    19. 

8  Kiel  V.  Carll,  51  Conn.  440. 

9  Booth  V.  Pendola,  88  Cal.  36, 
23  Pac.  200,  25  Pac.  1101;  Sweet- 
zer  V.  Harwick,  67  Iowa  488,  25  N. 
W.  744.  The  provision  of  the 
Code  (Old  Code,  167),  authoriz- 
ing the  joinder  of  causes  of  ac- 
tion, legal  and  equitable  by  im- 
plication prohibits  the  union  of 
a  cause  of  action  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  a  lien  with  one  for  the 
collection  of  a  debt,  except  in  the 
case  of  a  mortgage  secured  by 
bond  or  other  obligation  of  the 
mortgagor  or  a  third  person. 
Schillinger  Fire  Proof  Cement, 
&c.,  Co.  V.  Arnott,  14  N.  Y.  Supp. 
326. 

10  It  must  be  remembered  that 
the  mechanics'  lien  law  of  this 
state  has  been  changed  at  nearly 
every  session  of  the  legislature 
since  the  first  statute  on  the  sub- 
ject was  passed,  and  that  many 
former  decisions  of  this  court  in 
relation  to  it  rested  upon  provi- 
sions     not     now      in     existence. 


245] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


588 


verified, ^^    if  not,  they  are  subject  to  motion  or  demurrer.^2 

§  245,  Pleading — Answer. — The  issue  in  an  action  on  a  me- 
chanic's lien  is  raised  as  in  any  other  action,  and  the  general 
rules  of  pleading  apply,  and  if  defendant  wishes  to  contro- 
vert any  of  the  material  allegations  of  the  petition,  it  is 
proper  for  him  to  file  an  answer, ^  and  it  is  error  in  the  court 
to  refuse  him  that  privilege.^  As  a  general  rule,  if  there  is  no 
answer,  or  as  it  is  called  in  some  jurisdictions,  plea  or  affi- 
davit of  defense,  filed,  the  plaintiff  will  be  entitled  to  a  decree 
on  his  petition.^  In  some  instances,  however,  the  court  will 
require  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  allegations  in  the  petition.* 
And  some  courts  have  held  in  accordance  with  the  rules  appli- 
cable to  pleadings  generally,  that  the  pendency  of  the  motion 
for  security  of  costs,  will  not  prevent  a  finding  on  the  plead- 
ings.^ In  order,  however,  that  there  may  be  a  valid  find- 
ing made  against  a  party  defendant,  the  petition  must  state  a 


Booth  V.   Pendola,   88   Cal.   36,   23 
Pac.    200,    25    Pac.    1101. 

11  Willamette  Falls  Transp.  & 
Mill.    Co.   V.    Riley,    1   Ore.    182. 

12  See  verification  of  claim,  §§ 
119,  120.  Daschke  v.  Schellen- 
burg,  124  Mich.  16,  84  N.  W.  67,  7 
Det.  Leg.  N.  475;  Wood  v.  King, 
57    Ark.    284,   21    S.    W.   471. 

Required  by  Kentucky  Statute. 
— A  petition  to  enforce  a  lien  for 
materials  not  stating,  as  required 
by  Ky.  St.  2468,  that  the  state- 
ment filed  in  the  county  clerk's 
office,  to  secure  the  lien,  was  sub- 
scribed and  sworn  to  by  petition- 
er, or  some  one  in  its  behalf,  is 
fatally  defective.  Newport,  &c., 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Lichtenfeldt  (Ky.), 
72  S.  W.  778,  24  Ky.  L.  1969. 

Sufficient  Verification. — A  veri- 
fication    of    a  bill  of    particulars 


served  with  notice  of  a  mechan- 
ic's lien,  that  such  bill  is  "in  all 
respects  true,  to  the  best  of  his 
(Claimant's)  knowledge  and  be- 
lief," is  sufficent.  Grey  v.  Vorhis, 
8  Hun   (N.  Y.)   612. 

1  Roberts  v.  Miller,  32  Mich. 
289.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit. 
Mechanics'  Liens,   §  272. 

2  Morris  v.  Ogle,  56  Ga.  592. 

3  Irish  V.  Pheby,  28  Neb.  231, 
44  N.  W.  438. 

4  A  judgment  for  want  of  an 
affidavit  of  defense  ought  not  to 
be  given  in  a  scire  facias  on  a 
mechanic's  claim,  where  the  con- 
tractor is  dead,  and  his  adminis- 
trator sued.  Richards  v.  Reed,  1 
Phila.  (Pa.)  220,  8  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.) 
126. 

5  Hamilton  v.  Dunn,  22  111.  259. 


589 


PLEADING ANSWER. 


[§245 


cause  of  action  against  him.*^  If  the  petition  does  not  state  a 
valid  cause  of  action  the  decree  is  a  nulHty,  and  the  answer  will 
only  be  held  to  put  in  issue  those  matters  directly  denied.' 
If  the  answer  sets  up  a  matter  not  in  the  nature  of  a  counter- 
claim, or  set-off,  and  does  not  controvert  a  material  averment 
in  the  petition,  on  motion  it  will  be  stricken  out.^  Of  course, 
under  the  general  rules  of  pleading,  if  the  answer  does  not 
constitute  a  defense,  it  is  subject  to  a  demurrer.^  Generally, 
however,  it  will  be  sufficient  if  it  sets  up  any  defense  which 
the  defendant  may  have.     Under  the  Pennsylvania  statutes, 


6  Judson  V.  Stephens,  75  111. 
255. 

7  Badger  Lumber  Co.  v.  Mueh- 
lebach,  109  Mo.  App.  646,  83  S. 
W.  546.  In  an  action  to  foreclose 
a  mechanic's  lien,  the  complaint 
alleged  the  date  of  the  comple- 
tion of  the  building,  and  that  the 
lien  was  filed  on  April  6,  1894, 
within  30  days  thereafter.  The 
answer  denied  "that  within  thrty 
days  from  and  after  the  comple- 
tion of  said  building,  to-wit,  upon 
the  6th  day  of  April,  1894,  or  at 
any  other  time,  or  at  all,"  plaint- 
iff's filed  their  claim  of  lien,  con- 
taining a  statement  of  their  de- 
mand. Held,  (that  the  answer 
was  but  a  denial  of  the  time  of 
filing  the  notice  of  lien,  and  of 
its  sufficiency  and  admitted  the 
allegation  of  the  tme  when  the 
building  was  completed.  Lingard 
V.  Beta  Theta  Pi  Hall  Assn. 
(Cal.),  56  Pac.  58.  An  allega- 
tion merely  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  the  work  was  done 
with  the  knowledge  of  the  owner, 
was  properly  stricken  out.  New 
Jersey  Steel  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Robin- 


son, 74  App.  Div.    (N.  Y.)    481,  77 
N.   Y.   Supp.   547. 

8  An  averment  in  the  answer 
that  plaintiff  was  out  of  employ- 
ment, and  claimed  to  be  owing 
certain  sums  for  taxes  and  inter- 
est, which  he  claimed  to  be  un- 
able to  pay,  was  properly  strick- 
en out.  Ontario-Colorado  Gold 
Min.  Co.  V.  Mackenzie,  19  Colo. 
App.   298,   74   Pac.   791. 

9  Alabama,  &c..  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Smith,  139  Ala.  179,  35  So.  693; 
Anisansel  v.  Goggeshall,  83  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  491,  82  N.  Y.  Supp. 
430.  Bond  executed  by  plaintiffs 
and  defendants  jointly  to  prevent 
lien  on  pi'operty,  a  good  datfense. 
Gordon  v.  Norton,  5  Lack.  Leg. 
N.  (Pa.)  381,  23  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  158, 
9    Pa.    Dist.    29. 

Sufficient  Defense. — In  an  ac- 
tion to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien, 
an  answer  by  defendant's  wife, 
claiming  the  property  as  her  sep- 
arate estate  and  homestead  and 
alleging  that,  though  the  title 
deeds  show  the  property  to  be 
community  property,  it  was 
bought  with  her  separate  money, 
and  under  an   agr&ement  that  it 


§  246] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


590 


the  answer  is  made  by  affidavit  of  defense. ^"^  In  order  for  a 
person  to  be  bound  by  any  decree,  he  must  be  made  a  party. 
The  time  for  filing  an  answer  is  regulated  entirely  by  the 
statute  of  the  state  in  which  the  action  is  brought. ^^  Where 
the  old  common  law  pleadings  are  used,  the  distinction  be- 
tween matters  in  abatement  and  in  bar  must  be  observed. ^^ 

§  246.  Pleading — Answer — General  matters. — The  ordinary 
rules  of  pleading  will  be  applied  in  determining  the  sufficiency 
of  the  answer. 1      Like  other  rules,  a  plea  is  construed  most 


should  be  conveyed  to  her,  all  of 
which  plaintiff  well  knew  when 
he  furnished  the  material,  suffi- 
ciently presents  an  issue,  and  is 
good  on  demurrer.  Owens  v. 
Hord,  14  Tex.  Civ.  App.  542,  37  S. 
W.  1093.  In  an  action  to  enforce 
a  mechanic's  lien  upon  property, 
a  plea  which  simply  avers  that 
"plaintiff  has  no  lien  upon  the 
property  described  in  the  com- 
plaint" is  subject  to  demurrer  for 
its  uncertainty,  and  as  being 
purely  the  statement  of  a  legal 
conclusion.  Alabama  State  Fair, 
&c.,  Assn.  V.  Alabama  Gas  Fix- 
ture, &c.,  Co.,  131  Ala.  256,  31 
So.  26. 

10  Rockwell  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cam- 
bridge Springs  Co.,  191  Pa.  St. 
386,  43  Atl.  327;  North  End  Lum- 
ber Co.  v.  O'Donnell,  191  Pa.  St. 
114.  42  Atl.  7S;  Yaukey  v.  Buck- 
man,  18  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  378; 
Swenk  v.  Irwin,  8  Del.  Co.  Ct.  6, 
14  York.  Leg.  Rec.  (Pa.)  12.  Tay- 
lor V.  Wahl,  69  N.  J.  L.  471,  55  Atl. 
40. 

Sufficient  Allegation.  —  Judg- 
ment for  want  of  sufficient  affi- 
davit of  defense,  in  proceedings 
to    enforce    a   mechanic's    lien,    is 


properly  denied;  it  being  al- 
leged therein  that  plaintiff 
agreed  to  finish  and  deliver  the 
house  to  defendant  by  a  certain 
time,  free  of  all  claims  and  liens, 
and  that,  in  addition  to  plaintiff's 
claim  for  balance  of  contract 
price,  there  were  three  other 
claims  filed  against  the  building 
for  services  rendered  and  mate- 
rials used  in  its  construction. 
Thomas  v.  O'Donell,  183  Pa.  St. 
145,  38  Atl.  597;  41  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.) 
210. 

iiThielmann  v.  Burg,  73  111. 
293. 

12  Campbell  v.  Scaife,  1  Phila. 
(Pa.)  187,  8  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  74. 

1  Xevada, — Dickson  v.  Corbett, 
11  Xev.  277. 

Pennsylvania. — Murphy  v.  Cap- 
peau,  147  Pa.  St.  45,  23  Atl.  438; 
Davis  v.  Church,  1  Watts  &  S. 
(Pa.)  240;  Aman  v.  Brady,  2  W. 
X.  C.  (Pa.)  262;  Wilt  v.  Rush,  1 
W.  X.  C.  (Pa.)  103;  Davis  v. 
Stratton,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  289,  9 
Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  11;  Campbell  v. 
Scaife,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  187,  8  Leg. 
Int.  (Pa.)  74;  Finn  v.  Connell,  2 
Lack.  Leg.  N.    (Pa.)   118;   Geiss  v. 


591 


ANSWER — GENERAL   MATTERS. 


[§246 


strictly  against  the  pleader.-  But  if  a  party  is  entitled  to  any 
relief  whatever,  under  the  statements  of  his  pleadings,  there 
should  not  be  a  non-suit.^  It  has  been  held  that  where  the 
facts  are  within  the  knowledge  or  reach  of  knowledge,  an 
answer  on  information  and  belief  will  not  raise  an  issue,^ 
but  if  there  is  a  doubt  about  it,  such  answer  would  be  held 
good.5  It  is  held  that  the  statement  in  the  pleading  that  the 
pleader  "expects  to  prove  certain  things",  that  this  is  an  alle- 


Rapp,  1  Walk.  (Pa.)  Ill,  14  Leg. 
Int.    (Pa.)    116. 

Wisconsin. — Harbeck  v.  South- 
well, 18  Wis.  418. 

Wyoming. — Big  Horn  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Davis,  14  Wyo.  455,  84  Pac. 
900,  85  Pac.  1048. 

Insufficient  Pleas. — Where  the 
complaint  alleged  that  the  con- 
tract payment  was  to  be  made  by 
a  certain  time,  but  not  that  the 
work  was  to  be  completed  by  that 
time,  or  that  the  payment  of  the 
price  was  contingent  thereon,  a 
denial  in  the  answer  of  the  com- 
pletion of  the  work  was  not  ma- 
terial, since  the  defendant  might 
have  agreed  to  make  the  pay- 
ment in  advance.  Rourk  v.  Mil- 
ler, 3  Wash.  St.  73,  27  Pac.  1029. 

Sufficient. — In  a  proceeding  to 
enforce  a  mechanic's  lien,  de- 
fenses that  the  agreed  price  was 
payable  by  installments  and  that 
the  notice  of  lien  was  not  filed 
within  six  months  after  the  first 
installments  became  due,  and 
that  there  was  an  action  at  law 
pending  to  recover  the  same 
amount,  held  not  irrelevant  or 
frivolous.  Wiebb  v.  Van  Zandt, 
16   Abb.   Pr.    (N.   Y.)    190. 

Defective  Answer. — An  answer 
in    effect    that    the    defendant    is 


not  indebted  the  full  amount 
claimed  in  the  petition  is  not  a 
denial  of  any  fact  on  which  the 
right  to  recover  depends  and 
raises  no  issue.  Gray  v.  Elbling, 
35   Neb.   278,   53  N.  W.   68. 

2  Holland  v.  JWilson,  76  Cal. 
434,  18  Pac.  412;  Rourk  v.  Miller, 
3    Wash.    St.    73,    27    Pac.    1029. 

3  Schmid  v.  Busch,  97  Cal.  184, 
31  Pac.  893;  Philadelphia  Brick 
Co.  V.  J.  D.  Johnson  Co.,  162  Pa. 
St.  199,  29  Atl.  864. 

■1  Curnow  v.  Happy  "Valley  Blue 
Gravel,  &c.,  Co.,  68  Cal.  262,  9 
Pac.   149. 

5  Cowie  V.  Ahrenstedt,  1  Wash. 
St.  416,  25  Pac.  458.  Where  the 
complaint  in  a  suit  to  foreclose  a 
mechanic's  lien  alleges  that  the 
claim  for  a  lien  was  duly  record- 
ed, and  states  its  contents  sub- 
stantially in  the  language  of  the 
statute  requiring  such  claim,  but 
the  claim  as  recorded  was  in- 
artificially  drawn,  and  not  in  the 
language  of  the  complaint,  a  de- 
nial in  the  answer  that  the 
claim  contains  the  necessary 
averments  is  sufficient  to  raise  an 
issue  as  to  the  alleged  claim, 
though  such  denial  is  made  on 
information   and   belief.     Hagman 


246] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


592 


gation  on  "information  and  belief."'^  Under  the  common  law  the 
plea  of  nil  debet  which  is  held  to  be  a  general  denial,  puts  the 
mechanic  on  proof  of  his  claim."  A  plea  of  non-assumpsit  does 
not  raise  the  question  of  formal  deficiencies  in  the  claim.* 
A  denial  that  the  plaintiff  ever  had  any  claim,^  or  that  there 
is  any  indebtedness,  is  a  mere  conclusion  of  law,  and  does  not 
raise  an  issue  of  fact.^'^  Setting  forth  in  vague  terms  that 
the  plaintiff  has  been  paid  is  not  a  good  defense, ^^  but  an 
averment  that  the  plaintiff'  is  paid  more  than  is  due  him,  is 
held  to  be  a  good  defense.^-  A  plea  that  plaintiff  has  "no 
lien,"^-^  or  "that  he  has  not  complied  wath  the  law"  are  likewise 
held  conclusions  of  law  and  on  proper  motions  should  be 
stricken  out.^'*  So  it  is  held  that  mere  denial  by  the  defend- 
ant that  he  is  the  owner  of  the  land  will  not  raise  an  issue  of 
defense, ^^   for  if  he  had  no  title,  he  could  not  be  injuriously 


V.  Williams,   S8   Cal.   146,  25   Pac. 
1111. 

'3  Fister  v.  Kline,  1  Woodw. 
Dec.   (Pa.)   457. 

7  Hicks  V.  Branton,  21  Ark.  186. 

8  Kees  V.  Kerney,  5  Md.  419; 
Kllaefelter  v.  Baum,  172  Pa.  St. 
652,  33  Atl.  582. 

9  Campbell  v.  Scaife,  1  Phila. 
(Pa.)    187,    8    Leg.    Int.    (Pa.)    74. 

10  Merrigan  v.  English,  9  Mont. 
113,   22   Pac.   454,   5   L.  R.   A.   837. 

11  Smyth  V.  Armstrong,  2  W. 
X.  C.  (Pa.)  383;  Finn  v.  Connell, 
2  Lack.  Leg.  N.  (Pa.)  118; 
Young  v.  Pulte,  1  W.  X.  C.  (Pa.) 
38. 

12  Kee  V.  Hilt,  33  W.  X.  C.  (Pa.) 
104;  Collins  v.  Schoch,  14  W.  X. 
C.  (Pa.)   485. 

13  Lee  V.  Burke,  66  Pa.  St.  336; 
McDowell  V.  Hill,  1  Phila.  (Pa.) 
102,  7  Leg.  Int.   (Pa.)   179. 

14  Curnow  v.  Happy  Valley 
Blue  Gravel,  &c.,  Co.,  68  Cal.  262, 


9  Pac.  149.  The  complaint  al- 
leged a  contract  between  the 
principal  contractor  and  defend- 
ant, the  owner;  a  subcontract  be- 
tween the  principal  contractor 
and  plaintiff;  the  performance  of 
the  subcontract  by  plaintiff;  the 
reasonable  value  of  the  services 
and  materials  furnished;  the  non- 
payment of  a  portion  of  the  sum 
thus  due;  and  the  filing  of  the 
lien.  The  answer  denied  de- 
fendant's indebtedness  to  plaint- 
iff, and  that  plaintiff  had  any 
lien.  Held,  that  such  denials 
were  conclusions  of  law,  which 
did  not  raise  any  issues  of  fact. 
Merrigan  v.  English,  9  Mont.  113, 
32   Pac.  454,  5  L.   R.  A.  837. 

1'^  South  Omaha  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Central  Inv.  Co.,  32  Xeb.  529,  49 
X.  W.  429;  Leiby  v.  Wilson,  40 
Pa.  St.  63;  Spare  v.  Walz,  15 
Phila.   (Pa.)  263. 


593  ANSWER   AND   CROSS — PETITION.  [§  247 

affected  unless  a  personal  judgment  was  sought  against  him, 
and  if  such  were  the  case,  then  no  ownership  would  not  be  a 
defense.  The  statute  of  limitations  must  always  be  raised 
by  plea,  and  such  matter  is  a  proper  defense. ^^  As  a  consent 
or  agreement  of  the  owner  is  generally  essential  to  the  validity 
of  the  lien,  this  fact  becomes  an  issuable  one  and  should  be 
made  by  answer.  If  the  statute,  however,  makes  the  lien  en- 
forceable without  the  owner's  consent,  then  a  denial  will  not 
raise  an  issue. ^"  As  a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that  a 
denial  that  the  material  was  used  in  the  building  or  structure 
on  which  it  is  sought  to  foreclose  a  lien,  will  be  good  and 
raise  an  issue  to  be  determined  on  trial. ^^  This  fact,  how- 
ever, depends  upon  whether  or  not  the  decisions  of  the  courts 
of  such  a  state  have  held  that  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  fore- 
close a  lien  that  it  must  be  shown  that  the  material  went 
into  the  building.  Upon  this  question  the  courts  are  not 
in  accord.  Whatever  defense  is  set  up  should  not  be  infer- 
ential and  argumentative,  but  a  positive  averment  of  facts. ^^ 

§  247.  Cross-petition. — The  law  encourages  such  a  course 
of  action  between  parties  litigant  that  all  matters  shall  be 
settled  in  as  few  suits  as  possible  and  if  the  defendant  has  a 
cross-demand  in  the  nature  of  a  set-off  or  counterclaim 
against  the  plaintiff,  he  may  set  it  up.  While  this  is  not 
compulsory,  yet  if  the  defendant  desires  any  afifirmative  re- 
lief,^  he   must   set  up   whatever  his   demands   may   be.     The 

16  Philadelphia  Brick  Co.  v.  J.  ber  Co.,  109  Ala.  397,  19  So.  417; 
D.  Johnson  Co.,  162  Pa.  St.  199,  Hoffmaster  v.  Knupp,  15  Pa.  Co. 
29    Atl.    864;    Shannon   v.    Broad-      Ct.  465. 

bent,  162  Pa.  St.  194,  29  Atl.  865,  lo  Catanach  v.  Cassidy,  159  Pa. 

34  W.  N.  C.   (Pa.)   466.  St.  474,  28  Atl.  297. 

17  Some  states  allow  it  to  be  i  Where  the  original  contractor 
raised  by  special  demurrer,  does  not  file  any  lien  but,  being 
Neeley  v.  Searight,  113  Ind.  made  a  defendant  in  a  subcon- 
316,  15  N.  E.  598;  Evans  v.  Cun-  tractor's  action  merely  answers, 
ningham,  6  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  156;  Hill  without  pleading  in  the  nature 
V.  Bramall,  1  Miles    (Pa.)   352.  of  a  cross   action,  he   is   not  en- 

18  McAnally   v.    Hawkins    Lum-  titled  to  judgment  for  the  amount 


§247] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


594 


pleading  in  which  this  is  done  is  usually  called  a  cross-peti- 
tion,2  and  it  is  error  to  refuse  the  defendant  this  privilege  if 
the  matter  properly  arises  out  of  the  same  transaction. ^  Under 
some  statutes  it  is  provided  that  if  an  action  is  brought  by  one 
mechanic,  then  the  rights  of  all  mechanics  should  be  de- 
termined. Then  the  court  may  require  the  plaintifif  to  set  up 
the  claims  of  all  the  mechanics  in  his  complaint,  or  make 
an  order  that  all  parties  claiming  or  interested  in  the  matter 
should  be  made  parties  and  set  up  their  rights."*  Where  the 
action  of  one  determines  the  rights  of  all,  then  each  can  not 
bring  a  separate  action.^  If  the  petitioner  does  not  set  out 
all  the  facts  necessary  to  make  a  lien,  and  it  is  necessary  to 
determine  his  rights  in  order  to  determine  the  rights  of  others, 
a  defendant  in  a  cross-petition  can  set  forth  the  facts  giving 
a  lien  to  all.*'     But  a  cross-petitioner  need  not  allege  matters 


of  his  claim  over  and  above  the 
claims  of  subcontractors  but 
must  be  left  to  his  personal  ac- 
tion against  the  owner.  jNIorgan 
V.  Stevens,  6  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N. 
Y.)  356.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  273. 

2  Howett  V.  Selby,  54  111.  151; 
Perkins  Oil  Co.  v.  Eberhart,  107 
Tenn.  409,  64  S.  W.  760.  Owner 
may  set  up  damages  for  failure 
of  contractor  to  perform  contract, 
in  action  brought  by  a  subcon- 
tractor without  filing  cross-bill. 
Julin  V.  Ristow  Poths  Mfg.  Co., 
54  111.  App.  460.  A  mechanic's 
lien  may  be  asserted  by  an  action 
in  the  nature  of  a  cross-bill. 
Smalley  v.  Ashland  Brown-Stone 
Co..  114  Mich.  104,  72  N.  W.  29. 

3  Thielman  v.  Carr,  75  111.  385; 
Smalley  v.  Northwestern  Terra- 
Cotta  Co.,  113  Mich.  141,  71  N. 
W.  466;  Koch  v.  Sumner,  145 
Mich.  358,  108  N.  W.  725,  116  Am. 


St.  302,  13  Det.  Leg.  N.  Mich. 
487.  "Judge         Cooper,         in 

Hergel  v.  Laitenberger,  2  Tenn. 
Ch.  251,  §254,  says:  'A  cross 
bill,  ex  vi  terminorum,  implies  a 
bill  brought  by  a  defendant  in  a 
suit  against  the  plaintiff  respect- 
ing the  matter  in  question  in  the 
original  bill,  and  must  be  a  de- 
fense to  the  original  suit,  and  an 
auxiliary  to  it  or  dependent  upon 
it,  so  far  that  the  equity  be- 
tween the  co-defendants  is  the 
result  of  complainant's  litiga- 
tion.' "  McRae  v.  University  of 
the  South  (Tenn.  Ch.  App.),  52 
S.  W.  463. 

•1  Emack  v.  Campbell,  14  App. 
D.  C.  186. 

^  Culver  V.  Lieberman,  69  N.  J. 
L.  341,  55  Atl.  812;  Nason  v. 
Northwestern  Milling,  &c.,  Co.,  17 
Wash.  142.  49  Pac.  235. 

0  Powell  V.  Nolan,  27  Wash. 
318.  67  Pac.  712,  68  Pac.  389. 


595 


ANSWER  AND  CROSS-PETITION. 


[§247 


that  are  proper  for  defenses^  The  same  rules  of  pleading 
apply  to  cross-petitions  as  other  pleadings,  and  a  cross-peti- 
tioner cannot  recover  more  than  he  asks  for,*  and  if  he  does 
not  state  a  good  cause  of  action,  his  cross-petition  is  subject  to 
demurrer.^  No  particular  form  is  required,  and  in  some  instances 
as  where  some  part  is  presumed  to  be  prepared  by  the  mechanic 
himself,  the  rule  is  not  as  strict  as  in  ordinary  pleadings.^*' 
Generally  all  matters  should  be  set  up  with  such  particularity 
as  is  required  if  the  party  was  beginning  a  suit,  alleging 
all  facts  required  by  statute^^  that  relate  to  or  depend  upon 
the  transaction  upon  which  the  plaintiff's  action  is  brought, ^2 
and  if  any  party  is  to  be  affected  otherwise  than  permitted 
by  the  allegations  of  the  petition,  such  party  must  be  served 
with  process. ^^  However,  in  some  jurisdictions,  as  stated  in 
the  beginning  of  this  section,  any  claim  or  set-off  is  allowed  to 
be  set  up  against  the  demand  of  the  plaintiff.     Such  matters 


"  The  rule  of  pleading  at  com- 
mon law  is  that,  in  declaring  on 
a  statute,  where  there  is  an  ex- 
ception in  the  enacting  clause, 
the  party  pleading  must  show  that 
his  adversary  is  not  within  the 
exception;  but  where  there  is  no 
exception  in  the  enacting  clause, 
but  an  exemption  in  a  proviso  or 
in  a  subsequent  section,  it  is  a 
matter  of  defense.  Myers  v.  Carr, 
12  Mich.  63;  People  v.  Curtis,  95 
Mich.  212,  54  N.  W.  767.  This 
rule  is  also  applied  in  equity. 
Attorney  General  v.  Oakland 
County  Bank,  Walk.  Ch.  90; 
Smalley  v.  Ashland  Brown-Stone 
Co.,  114  Mich.  104,  72  N.  W.  29. 
.  s  Culmer  v.  Caine,  22  Utah  216, 
61  Pac.  1008. 

9  Meyers  v.  Wood,  26  Tex.  Civ. 
App.   591,   65   S.   W.    671. 

10  The    exhibit  of    lien    holders, 
who  come    in   under   notice   from 


one  who  wishes  to  enforce  a  me- 
chanic's or  material  man's  lien, 
is  not  governed  by  the  strict 
rules  relating  to  pleadings  in  or- 
dinary actions.  Tibbetts  v.  Moore, 
23  Cal.  208. 

11  Ford  Gold  Min.  Co.  v.  Lang- 
ford,  1  Colo.  62;  Sutherland  v. 
Ryerson,  24  111.  518;  Alexander 
V.  Church,  53  Conn.  561,  4  Atl. 
103. 

12  Clark  V.  Taylor,  91  Cal.  552, 
27  Pac.  860;  Koempel  v.  Shaw,  13 
Minn.  488. 

13  Jewett  V.  Iowa  Land  Co.,  64 
Minn.  531,  67  N.  W.  639,  58  Am. 
St.  555.  If  the  complaint  is 
brought  in  a  court  of  equity, 
while  it  might  not  entertain  a 
cross-petition  in  damages,  under 
the  old  forms  of  pleading,  yet  it 
would  protect  him  until  he  could 
sue  and  recover  at  law.  Brown 
V.  Boker,  20  D.  C.  99. 


§  248]  ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN.  596 

will  depend  very  largely  upon  the  code  of  procedure  in  the 
state  where  the  action  is  brought. 

§  248.  Reply. — The  matter  of  reply  is  likewise  governed 
by  the  code  of  procedure  of  the  different  states.  General  rules 
of  pleading,  however,  recognize  the  fact  that  unless  the  answer 
contains  an  allegation  of  new  matter,  no  reply  is  necessary.^ 
And  under  some  statutes,  all  such  new  matter  is  deemed  con- 
troverted without  a  reply,^  and  under  others  a  notice  must  be 
given  plaintiff'  if  an  answer  is  filed,  and  unless  such  notice  is 
given,  no  reply  is  required.^  As  a  general  rule,  only  matters 
can  be  set  up  in  a  reply  that  constitute  a  defense  to  some 
allegation  of  new  matter  in  the  answer,-*  and  a  defective  peti- 
tion cannot  be  cured  of  its  failure  to  contain  essential  aver- 
ments, by  setting  them  up  in  a  reply. ^  This  would  be  what 
is  known  in  pleading  as  a  departure.  However,  sometimes 
in  order  to  avoid  circuity  of  action  new  matter  is  allowed 
in  a  reply.*'-    No  further  pleading  is  now  generally  permitted 

1  Englebrecht  v.  Rickert,  14  •*  Helena  Lumber  Co.  v.  Mon- 
Minn.  140.  Where  a  bill  has  been  tana  Cent.  R.  Co.,  10  Mont.  81, 
filed  to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien,  24  Pac.  702.  The  defendant 
a  claim  for  recoupment  in  the  pleaded  payment,  and  set  out 
answer  on  the  ground  that  the  certain  checks,  etc.,  to  support 
■work  was  badly  done  does  not  his  plea.  The  plaintiff,  in  his  re- 
make such  answer  one  setting  up  ply,  alleged  that  $150  of  the 
new  matter  calling  for  affirma-  amount  so  paid  -was  for  extra 
tive  relief,  and  no  special  reply  work,  describing  it,  which  had 
thereto  is  necessary,  under  Code,  been  performed  on  the  building 
c.  125,  §  35,  but  such  claim  is  by  the  plaintiff  at  the  defendant's 
only  matter  of  defense  to  the  bill,  request.  A  motion  to  strike  this 
and  is  met  by  a  general  replica-  allegation  out  of  the  reply  was 
tion.  Foutty  v.  Poar,  35  W.  Va.  properly  overruled.  Hibbard  v. 
70,  12  S.  E.  1096.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Talmage,  32  Neb.  147,  49  N.  W. 
Dig.    tit.    jNIechanics'  Liens,    §  275.  219. 

2  Johnson  v.  Lau,  58  Minn.  508,  5  Dearie  v.  Martin,  78  Pa.  St.  55. 
60  N.  W.  342;  Bruce  v.  Lennon,  g -^^here  the  answer  alleged 
52  Minn.  547,  54  N.  W.  739.  that  plaintiff  had  been  a  guarant- 

3  Liennemeyer  v.  INIiller,  70  111.  or  on  the  contractor's  bond,  and 
244;  Person  v.  Smith,  30  111.  App.  that  a  liability  thereon  had  ac- 
103.  crued,   any   defense  on  behalf  of 


597 


REPLY  AND  DEMURRER. 


[§249 


by  the  codes  of  procedure  and  whatever  matter  is  contained 
in  the  reply  will  be  considered  as  denied  without  further 
pleading^ 

§  249.  Demurrer. — A  demurrer  serves  the  same  ofifice  in 
pleadings  in  actions  on  mechanics'  liens  that  it  does  in  other 
actions,  and  if  no  cause  of  action  is  stated  the  question  is 
properly  raised  by  a  demurrer^  and  not  by  answer.^  But  a 
demurrer  to  the  complaint  will  not  be  entertained  after  an 
answer  has  been  filed.''  The  question  whether  or  not  a  de- 
murrer will  lie  rests  upon  the  allegations  and  facts  stated 
in  the  petition  and  exhibits  thereto  which  are  made  a  part 
thereof/  and  if  the  entire  petition  contains  a  good  cause  of 
action,  although  some  portions  are  not  proper,  a  general  de- 
murrer will  not  lie;  the  objectionable  parts  should  be  reached 
by  motion  to  strike,"'  or  by  a  special  demurrer,^  and  should 
be  taken  advantage  of  before  verdict.'     If  it  requires  proof  to 


the  guarantor  should  have  been 
set  out  by  way  of  reply.  Clos- 
son  V.  Blllman,  161  Ind.  610,  69 
N.   E.  449. 

'  The  proceeding  to  enforce  a 
mechanic's  lien  is  strictly  a 
chancery  proceeding,  and  must 
be  governed  by  the  rules  of 
pleading  applicable  to  chancery 
cases.  In  chancery,  special  repli- 
cations are  no  longer  allowed  and 
if  filed,  can  only  be  treated  as 
general  replies.  Shaeffer  v.  Weed, 
8  111.  511. 

1  Doughty  V.  Devlin,  1  E.  D. 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  625.  If  sustained 
il  affects  all  parties  in  interest — 
"Estimate"  defined.  Brown  v. 
Cornwell    (Va.),  60  S.  E.  623. 

2  Scholl  V.  Gerhab,  93  Pa.  St. 
346;    Lybrandt  v.   Eberly,   36    Pa. 


St.  347.     See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit. 
Mechanics'  Liens,  §  275. 

3  Pittsburgh  Heating  Supply 
Co.  V.  Will,  5  Pa.  Dist.  618. 

4  McFadden  v.  Stark,  58  Ark.  7, 
22  S.  W.  884;  Brandt  v.  New 
York,  186  N.  Y.  599,  79  N.  E.  1101. 
A  bill  to  foreclose  a  mechanic's 
lien  is  demurrable  when  it  sets 
out  a  copy  of  the  notice  of  claim 
which  on  its  face  is  insufficient. 
I\Iinor  v.  Marshall,  6  N.  Mex.  194, 
27  Pac.  481. 

•">  Bourgette  v.  Hubinger,  30  Ind. 
296;  Lee  v.  Kimball,  45  Wash. 
656,   88   Pac.   1121. 

0  Slight  V.  Patton,  96  Cal.  384, 
31  Pac.  248. 

7  After  verdicts  the  receiving 
court  is  to  uphold  the  pleadings 
by       every       legal       intendment. 


§249] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


598 


show  that  the  facts  alleged  are  insufficient,  then  a  demurrer 
will  not  lie.^  Neither  will  a  demurrer  lie  where  the  complaint 
or  petition  is  merely  indefinite  if  sufficient  remains  to  show 
a  cause  of  action.^  As  a  general  rule,  the  petition  will  be 
sufficient  if  it  states  a  cause  of  action  of  any  kind.  In  other 
words,  a  demurrer  will  not  lie  if  the  petition  states  sufficient 
facts  to  allow  the  rendition  of  a  personal  judgment. ^'^  The 
proper  procedure  in  such  a  case  would  be  to  move  to  strike 
out  the  part  of  the  petition  which  does  not  state  a  cause  of 
action. 11  The  general  grounds  for  demurrers  are  usually  fixed 
by  statute.  Among  other  things,  petitions  have  been  held  open 
to  demurrer  where  they  failed  to  show  that  the  lien  was  filed 
within  the  required  time,!^  or  that  the  materials  w'cre  fur- 
nished within  the  time  limit,i^  or  failed  to  set  out  the  con- 
tract,!•*  or  omitted  a  necessary  person, ^^  or  set  out  a  wrongful 


Skyrme     v.     Occidental     Mill     & 
Min.  Co.,  8  Nev.  219. 

8  Co'ddington  v.  Beebe,  29  N.  J. 
L.    550. 

9  Houston  Cotton  Exch.  v. 
Crawley,  3  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas. 
§138. 

10  California. — Knowles  v.  Bald- 
win, 125  Cal.  224,  57  Pac.  988. 

Indiana. — Rankin  v.  Walker,  65 
Ind.  222;  Farrell  v.  Lafayette 
Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.,  12  Ind.  App. 
326,  40   N.  E.   25. 

]Vebraska. — Griggs  v.  Le  Poide- 
vin,  11  Neb.  385,  9  N.  W.  557. 

New  York. — Power  v.  Onward 
Const.  Co.,  39  Misc.  (X.  Y.)  707, 
SO    N.    Y.    Supp.    950. 

PennsylYania. —  Pittsburgh. 
Heating  Supply  Co.  v.  Will,  5  Pa. 
Dist.  618. 

Wiisliington. — Lee  v.  Kimball, 
45  Wash.  656,  88  Pac.  1121. 

iiLawton  v.  Case,  73  Ind.  60; 
Poole   V.   Fellows,   25   R.   I.   64,   54 


Atl.  772.  If  the  subject-matter 
of  a  mechanic's  claim  is  appar- 
ently within  the  statutes,  other 
objections  to  the  face  of  the 
claim  must  be  made  either  by 
motion  to  strike  off  or  by  demur- 
rer to  the  scire  facias.  Bernheisel 
V.  Smothers,  5  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  113, 
41  W.  N.  C.   (Pa.)   40. 

12  Coddington  v.  Beebe,  29  N.  J. 
L.  550;  Phillips  v.  Roberts,  26  W. 
Va.  783;  Wilier  v.  Bergenthal,  50 
Wis.  474,  7  N.  W.  352. 

13  Kinzey  v.  Thomas,  28  111.  502. 
1^  Goulding  v.  Smith,  114  Mass. 

487. 

15  The  complaint  on  demurrer 
will  not  be  considered  as  not 
stating  a  cause  of  action,  because 
it  fails  to  aA^er  that  there  were 
no  other  lienors.  Frederickson  v. 
Riebsam,  72  Wis.  587,  40  X.  W. 
501.  The  failure  to  aver,  in  a  bill 
filed  to  foreclose  a  mechanic's 
lien,  that  the  receiver  of  the  es- 


599 


PLEADING DEMURRER. 


:§249 


or  confusing  description  of  the  property;^"  provided,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  that  such  defects  appear  on  the  face  of  the 
petition.^"  The  pleader  who  follows  the  statute  will  not  find 
himself  obstructed  by  a  demurrer. ^^  If  statements  are  irre- 
concilably inconsistent  in  the  several  parts  of  the  petition, 
rendering  it  ambiguous,  a  demurrer  will  lie.^^  However,  if 
all  parts  taken  together  make  a  cause  of  action  a  demurrer 
should  not  be  sustained.-*^  No  material  facts  required  to  se- 
cure the  lien  will  be  presumed.-^  On  the  theory  that  an  answer 
is  not  proper  where  the  petition  does  not  state  a  cause  of 
action,  some  courts  have  held  that  filing  an  answer  is  an  ad- 
mission that  the  facts  stated  in  the  petition  are  sufificient 
to   sustain  the   lien.^^      g^t   this   ^yin   not   be   true   where  the 


tate  of  the  debtor  is  joined  as  a 
defendant  by  leave  of  the  court 
which  appointed  him,  is  a  sub- 
stantial defect,  and  the  objection 
may  be  raised  by  general  demur- 
er. Steel  Brick  Siding  Co.  v. 
Muskegon  Mach.,  &c.,  Co.,  98 
Mich.   616,  57  N.  W.  817. 

16  A  petition  to  foreclose  a 
mechanic's  lien  alleged  that  the 
owner  received  title  to  the 
whole  of  a  certain  block  by  one 
conveyance,  admitted  that  it  was 
divided  into  lots,  but  only  by  im- 
aginary lines,  and  claimed  a  lien 
on  the  whole  of  it.  The  recorded 
description  of  the  land  required 
by  law  was  contained  in  the  affi- 
davit as  follows:  "Lot  one  or 
two  of  block  sixty-six;"  and  the 
affidavit  alleged  that  the  mate- 
rial was  furnished  to  erect  "the 
house  on  lot  one  or  two"  but  did 
not  allege  any  confusion  in  the 
numbering  of  the  lots,  or  that  the 
house  was  on  a  particular  one. 
Held,  that  the  claim  of  lien  in 
the    petition    was    uncertain    and 


contradictory,  when  taken  with 
the  claim  in  the  affidavit,  and  a 
demurrer  was  properly  sustained. 
Lyon  V.  Logan,  66  Xex.  57,  17  S. 
W.  264. 

1"  Frederickson  v.  Riebsam,  72 
Wis.  587,  40  N.  W.  501. 

IS  Foster  v.  Skidmore,  1  E.  D. 
Smith    (N.   Y.)    719. 

19  Frazer  v.  Barlow,  63  Cal.  71. 

2'J  The  statement  in  a  mechan- 
ic's lien  was  that  the  said  mate- 
rials were  to  be  paid  for  60  days 
from  the  first  of  the  month  next 
after  delivery.  The  petition  to 
foreclose  the  lien  stated  that  paj^- 
ment  was  to  be  made  60  days 
after  the  date  of  the  delivery, 
respectively,  of  the  items  of  ma- 
terials furnished.  The  state- 
ment was  filed  as  an  exhibit  to 
the  petition.  The  demurrer  was 
improperly  sustained.  Schroth 
V.  Black,   50   IM.  App.   168. 

21  Cross  V.  Tscharnig,  27  Ore. 
49,  39  Pac.  540. 

22  Wood  V.  King,  57  Ark.  284, 
21    S.    W.    471.      In    an   action    to 


§250] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


600 


answer  is  a  general  denial.  The  right  to  raise  the  question 
on  the  hearing  as  to  the  defect  of  the  parties  or  other  juris- 
dictional matters,  is  not  waived  by  filing  a  demurrer  or 
answer. 23 

§  250.  Pleadings — Amendments. — As  a  general  rule,  the 
right  to  amend  in  an  action  to  foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien 
is  the  same  as  in  other  actions  and  is  governed  by  the  laws 
of  pleadings  in  the  different  states.^  Amendments  are  allowed, 
even  on  the  trial  to  conform  to  the  evidence  if  no  one  is 
prejudiced  thereby.^  As  a  matter  of  course,  before  trial, 
amendments  are  almost  always  allowed.^  The  courts  adopt  a 
liberal  rule  as  to  such  matters  and  unless  it  is  manifest  that 
an  injustice  will  be  done,  amendments  will  be  allowed  when 
properly  requested.'*  But  courts  are  not  bound  to  allow 
amendments  that  will  set  up  a  new  cause  of  action ;  this  is  a 


foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien  for 
material  furnished  the  contract- 
or in  the  erection  of  a  building, 
the  petiton  was  drawn  as  though 
the  contract  had  been  made  with 
the  owner  of  the  building,  in- 
stead of  the  contractor.  A  gen- 
eral demurrer  to  the  petition  on 
behalf  of  the  owner  was  over- 
ruled. While  the  petition  was 
informal  and  defective  in  its 
statements  as  to  the  acts  of  the 
contractor,  the  owner  waived  the 
objection  by  answering  over,  and 
contesting  the  case  upon  the 
merits.  Pomeroy  v.  White  Lake 
Lumber  Co.,  33  Neb.  240,  44  N. 
W.  730. 

23  Kerns  v.  Flynn,  51  Mich. 
573,    17   N.   W.    62. 

1  Gambling  v.  Haight,  58  N.  Y. 
623;  Murphy  v.  Guisti,  22  R.  I. 
588,  48  Atl.  944;  McGee  v.  Ped- 
mont  Mfg.   Co.,  7  Rich.    (S.  Car.) 


263.      Amendment     of     claim     or 
statement,  see  §  123. 

2  Illinois. — Merritt  v.  Crane  Co., 
126  111.  App.  337;  judgment  modi- 
fied;   225   111.  181,   80   N.  E.   103. 

ludiana. — Trueblood  v.  Shell- 
house,  19  Ind.  App.  91,  49  N.  E. 
47. 

Michigan. — Smalley  v.  North- 
western Terra-Cotta  Co.,  113 
Mich.  141,  71  N.  W.  466. 

Missouri. — Baltis  v.  Friend,  90 
Mo.  App.  408. 

^'ew  York. — Poerschke  v.  Horo- 
witz, 178  N.  Y.  601,  70  N.  E.  1107. 
Affirmed.  84  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
443,  82  N.  Y.  Supp.  742. 

3  Challoner  v.  Howard,  41  Wis. 
355. 

4  Indiana. — Clark  v.  Huey,  12 
Ind.  App.  224,  40  N.  E.  152;  also 
(Ind.)    36  N.  E.  51. 

Massachusetts. — Dodge  v.  Hall, 
16S  Mass.  435,  47  N.  E.  110. 


601 


PLEADINGS AMENDMENTS. 


§250 


matter  which  lies  in  the  sound  discretion  of  the  court.^     If  the 
parties  to  the   action   have   been    mistakenly    described,    the 


Michigan. — Daschke  v.  Schel- 
lenberger,  124  Mich.  16,  84  N.  W. 
67,  7  Det.  Leg.  N.  475;  Kilby 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Menominee  Circuit 
Judge,  138  Mich.  277,  101  N.  W. 
522,  11  Det.  Leg.  N.  540. 

Rhode  Island. — Spencer  v.  Do- 
herty,  17  R.  I.  89,  20  Atl.  232. 
Pub.  St.  c.  191,  §  2,  provides  for 
a  lien  for  labor  alone  under  a 
contract  for  labor  and  materials, 
where  it  can  be  distinctly  shown 
what  such  labor  was  worth.  Sec- 
tion 8  provides  that  the  validity 
of  a  lien  shall  not  be  affected  by 
any  inaccuracy  in  stating  amount 
due  for  labor  unless  petitioner 
willfully  claims  more  than  is  due. 
A  complaint  to  establish  a  lien 
for  labor  under  an  entire  con- 
tract for  $8,300,  for  labor  and 
materials  set  forth  the  value  of 
the  labor  at  $5,663.02.  $2,000  had 
been  paid  on  the  contract.  In 
the  petition  half  this  sum  was 
credited  on  the  amount  due  for 
labor.  An  amendment  striking 
out  the  $1,000,  and  claiming  the 
full  value  of  the  labor  stated, 
was  properly  allowed,  the 
amount  unpaid  exceeding  the  to- 
tal claim  of  the  labor.  Scannell 
v.  Hub  Brewing  Co.,  178  Mass. 
288,  59   N.  E.   628. 

Common  Counts.  —  Where  a 
declaration  contains  a  special 
count  for  the  enforcement  of  an 
alleged  lien,  and  common  counts 
for  work  done  and  materials  fur- 
nished and  an  account  stated, 
with     allegations     following     the 


common  counts  applicable  to  the 
special  count  alone,  and  defend- 
ant demurs  to  the  declaration, 
and  every  part  except  the  com- 
mon counts,  and  the  court  sus- 
tains the  declaration  as  to  the 
stated  portions,  it  is  not  error 
to  require  defendant  to  plead  to 
the  common  counts,  without  re- 
quiring plaintiff  first  to  amend 
his  declaration  by  striking  the 
matter  held  bad  on  demurrer. 
West  V.  Grainger,  46  Pla.  257,  35 
So.  91. 

•'•  Carey-Lombard  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Daugherty,  125  111.  App.  258; 
Joseph  N.  Eisendrath  Co.  v.  Geb- 
hardt,  124  111.  App.  325,  decree 
affirmed,  222  111.  113,  78  N.  E.  22. 
The  issues  to  be  tried  in  an  ac- 
tion are  not  matters  of  form  but 
are  of  the  substance  of  the  liti- 
gation. The  provision,  therefore, 
of  the  mechanics'  lien  law  for  the 
city  of  New  York  (5  Chap.  500, 
Laws  of  1893),  making  matters  of 
form  amendable  at  all  times, 
does  not  require  the  court  to 
amend,  as  a  matter  of  course,  the 
pleadings  upon  the  trial  of  an  ac- 
tion to  foreclose  a  lien  under  said 
act,  but  it  is  within  its  discretion, 
and  it  is  not  an  abuse  thereof  to 
refuse  an  amendment  which  in- 
troduces an  entirely  new  cause  of 
action  or  defense.  McGraw  v. 
Godfrey,  14  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  (N. 
Y.)  397;  also  16  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.) 
(N.  Y.)  358;  Davis  v.  Johnson,  4 
Colo.  App.  545,  36  Pac.  887.  Cause 
against       husband       cannot       be 


§250] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


602 


pleader  is  generally  allowed  to  amend  by  setting  out  a  correct 
description.'^  But  this  may  be  refused  where  the  misdescrip- 
tion was  due  to  negligence.'^  So  if  there  is  a  misdescription  of 
property,  an  amendment  is  generally  allowed.^  But  it  should 
not  be  allowed  to  affect  an  innocent  person  prejudicially.^  In 
some   cases  amendments   have   been   allowed   which   changed 


charged  against  wife.  Jennings 
V.  Huggins,  125  Ga.  338,  54  S.  E. 
169. 

ij  Brosnan  v.  Trulson,  164  Mass. 
410,  41  N.  E.  660;  Washburn  v. 
Burns,  34  N.  J.  L.  18;  Jobe  v. 
Hunter,  165  Pa.  St.  5,  30  Atl.  452, 

44  Am.    St.    639;    Nary  v.   Henni, 

45  Wis.  473.  Not  allowed.  Per- 
kins V.  Boyd,  37  Colo.  265,  86 
Pae.  1045. 

'  There  is  a  wide  difference  be- 
tween a  mere  mistake  and  a 
known  misstatement — between  a 
mere  error  that  may  happen  to 
any  one,  however  careful  he  may 
be  in  the  preparation  of  a  cause, 
and  carelessness  which  cannot 
be  excused.  The  statute  provides 
for  these  differences  by  making 
the  order  for  amendment  discre- 
tionary with  the  court,  for  it 
says  (Section  14)  the  court  may 
order  the  lien-claim  amended 
when  it  shall  appear  that  such 
amendment  can  be  justly  made. 
In  my  judgment  it  would  be  a 
bad  precedent,  and  an  unjust 
exercise  of  the  discretion  given 
to  the  court,  to  permit  the  plaint- 
iff now  to  amend  his  lien-claim 
and  issue  the  summons  against 
Frank  Ward,  his  only  debtor,  for 
the  purpose  of  charging  the  lands 
of  Mrs.    Curnice    under    the    stat- 


ute, when  with  knowledge  of  all 
the  facts,  he  has  first  charged  an- 
other as  his  debtor.  Bartley  v. 
Smith,  43  N.  J.  L.  321. 

8  Wasson  v.  Beauchamp,  11  Ind. 
18;  Trueblood  v.  Shellhouse,  19 
Ind.  App.  91,  49  N.  E.  47;  Wheel- 
er V.  Monett  Milling  Co.,  73  Mo. 
App.  672;  Schmidt  v.  Gilson,  14 
Wis.  514,  [558]. 

9  McCarty  v.  Van  Etten,  4 
Minn.  461.  There  is  great  reluct- 
ance to  set  aside  a  mechanic's 
claim  merely  for  loose  descrip- 
tion, as  the  acts  generally  con- 
template that  the  claimants 
prepare  their  own  papers, 
and  it  is  not  necessary 
that  the  description  should 
be  either  full  or  precise.  Ken- 
nedy V.  House,  41  Pa.  St.  39, 
80  Am.  Dec.  594;  McClintock  v. 
Rush,  63  Pa.  St.  203;  Northwest- 
ern Cement  &  Concrete  Pav.  Co. 
V.  Norwegian-Danish  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Augsburg  Seminary,  43 
Minn.  449,  45  N.  W.  868;  Cleverly 
V.  Moseley.  14S  Mass.  280,  19  N. 
E.  394;  Seaton  v.  Hixon,  35  Kan. 
663,  12  Pac.  22;  Hotaling  v. 
Cronise,  2  Cal.  60;  Tredinnick  v. 
Red  Cloud,  &c.,  Min.  Co.,  72  Cal. 
78,  13  Pac.  152;  Willamette 
Steam  2klills  Co.  v  .  Kremer,  94 
Cal.  205,  29  Pac.  633. 


603 


PLEADINGS — ISSUE. 


[§251 


the  form  of  action. ^^  However  an  amendment  should  not  be 
allowed  which  results  in  no  cause  of  action  being  stated. ^^ 
The  parties  affected  have  a  right  to  answer  or  plead  to  the 
new  or  amended  matter. ^^  But  if  they  do  not  plead  anew 
the  pleading  already  filed  will  be  considered  as  made  to  the 
amended  matter. ^^ 


§  251.  Pleadings — Issue. — The  object  of  all  pleadings  is  to 
get  into  some  definite  form  a  certain  fact  which  can  be  estab- 
lished or  disestablished  by  proof.  This  certain  and  material 
point  which  is  affirmed  on  one  side  and  denied  on  the  other 


10  Delaware. — Wood  v.  Wil- 
mington Conference  Academy,  5 
Houst.     (Del.)    513. 

Georgia, — Reynolds  v.  Randall, 
97  Ga.  231,  22  S.  E.  577;  Dunning 
V.  Stovall,  30  Ga.  444. 

Mississippi. — Prairie  Lodge,  No. 
87  V.  Smth,  58  Miss.  301;  Duff 
V.   Snider,  54   Miss.   245. 

Missouri. — Shaffner  v.  Leahy, 
21  Mo.  App.   110. 

Wisconsin. — Lackner  v.  Turn- 
bull,   7  Wis.   105. 

A  change  in  the  form  of  action 
brings  the  necessity  of  a  change 
in  the  judgment,  different  from 
that  in  which  the  original  suit 
was  brought.  If  assumpsit  were 
brought  on  a  sealed  instrument, 
could  the  court  decline  to  permit 
a  change  of  action  to  "debt"  or 
"covenant?"  The  amendment  of 
the  proceeding  in  this  case  did 
not  bring  into  the  record  any 
new  or  additional  cause  of  action. 
The  contract  was  precisely  the 
same,  the  amount  claimed  was  the 
same,  the  plaintiffs  in  error  could 
have  relied  upon  the  same  grounds 
of  defense  that  were  applicable  to 
the    action    of    assumpsit.      That 


no  sort  of  prejudice  did  or  could 
accrue  to  them,  is  made  manifest 
in  the  record.  Weathersby  v. 
Sinclair,  43  Miss.  189;  Castagnino 
V.  Balletta,  82  Cal.  250,  23  Pac. 
127. 

11  Crawford  v.  Crockett,  55  Ind. 
220;  Bailey  v.  Johnson,  1  Daly 
(N.  Y.)    61. 

12  Bowman  v.  McLaughlin,  45 
Miss.   461. 

13  In  an  action  to  enforce  a 
mechanic's  lien,  where  a  cross- 
petition  by  one  of  the  defendants 
sets  up  a  mechanic's  lien  in  his 
favor,  and  prays  for  a  foreclos- 
ure of  the  same  and  a  sale  of  the 
premises,  and  an  answer  is  filed 
containing  a  general  denial,  and 
upon  the  trial  the  court  permits 
the  cross  petition  to  be  amended,- 
so  as  to  allege  the  abandoment 
of  work  upon  the  building  in  the 
place  of  its  completion,  the  an- 
swer on  file  will  be  regarded  as 
putting  in  issue  such  amendment; 
and  when  the  court  and  parties 
proceed  with  the  trial  as  if  the 
alleged  abandoment  was  one  of 
the  issues,  the  failure  of  the 
court    to    permit    the    filing    of    a 


§251]  ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN.  604 

is  called  the  issue. ^  An  allegation  in  a  pleading  which  con- 
tains an  averment  that  is  essential  to  the  establishment  of  the 
claim  of  the  defense,  and  which  cannot  be  stricken  out  with- 
out leaving  it  insufficient,  is  a  material  allegation.^  As  a 
general  rule  the  title  to  the  property  is  not  in  issue  in  a  suit 
to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien.^  But  it  may  be,  and  if  there  are 
prior  claims  which  will  affect  the  sale  of  the  property  or 
are  proper  incidents  of  the  suit,  a  court  of  equity  will  adjust 
the  rights  of  all  parties  and  may  quiet  the  title.'*  A  reason 
for  this  is  that  the  purchaser  may  have  a  clear  title  and  thus 
be  induced  to  pay  a  full  price  for  the  property.  A  general 
denial  that  plaintifif's  claim  constitutes  a  lien  on  the  land  puts 
in  issue  the  liability  of  the  land  to  be  charged.^  And  a  de- 
nial that  the  lien  has  been  properly  obtained  puts  in  issue  the 
question  whether  the  statutory  requirements  have  been  com- 
plied with.*^  And  it  is  held  where  the  petition  is  amended  after 
an  answer  is  filed,  that  the  issue  will  be  considered  between 
the  amended  petition  and  the  answer."  If  there  is  matter 
put  in  issue  that  is  affirmed  on  one  side  and  denied  on  the 

new    denial    is    not    erroneous    or  building  thereon  is,  so  far  as  the 

prejudicial.     Great  Spirit  Springs  owner  of  the   land   is  concerned, 

Co.    V.    Chicago    Lumber    Co.,    47  a  proceeding  in  rem,  his  title  is 

Kan.  672,  28  Pac.  714.  not  put  in  issue   in   such   an  ac- 

1  Issues  arise  in  pleadings  tion;  and  such  issue,  even  if 
where  the  fact,  or  conclusion  of  raised  by  the  pleadings,  would  be 
law  is  maintained  by  one  party  immaterial.  Washburn  v.  Burns, 
and    controverted    by    the    other.  34  N.  J.  L.  18. 

Section    5128,    Ohio    statutes.    See  -i  Dugan   v.    Scott,   37   Mo.   App. 

Dec.    &   Am.    Dig.    tit.    IMechanics'  663. 

Liens,    §  277.  o  Beach  v.  Wakefield,  107  Iowa 

2  Gerry  v.  Painter,  9  Pa.  Super.  567,  76  N.  W.  688,  78  N.  W.  197; 
Ct.  150,  43  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  275.  Fitzpatrick  v.  Thomas,  61  Mo. 
Section  5082,  Ohio  statutes.  512. 

3  Falconer  v.  Frazier,  7  Sm.  &  c  Central  City  Brick  Co.  v.  Nor- 
M.  (Miss.)  235;  Steininger  v.  Rae-  folk,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  44  W.  Va.  286, 
man,   28   Mo.   App.   594.     Since   a  28  S.  E.  926. 

suit  to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien  "'  Sherry  v.  Madler,  123  Wis.  621, 

on    land    for    the    erection    of    a      101   N.   W.     1095.       Amendments, 

see    §  250. 


605 


ISSUE MATTERS  TO  BE  PROVEN. 


[§251 


other  that  is  immaterial,  evidence  offered  thereon  will  be  a 
nullity.^  However,  the  mere  fact  that  the  effect  of  the  aver- 
ment is  uncertain  will  not  make  it  immaterial.^  So  no  re- 
covery can  be  had  if  material  facts  are  found  to  be  true  which 
were  not  averred  and  which  if  averred  in  the  pleading  would 
have  entitled  plaintiff  to  recover  on  that  basis. ^'^  It  is  a 
familiar  principle  that  the  allegations  tending  to  make  the  issue 
and  the  proof  offered  must  agree. ^^ 

§  252.  Issue — Matters  to  be  proven. — The  rule  is  well 
recognized  that  in  order  to  recover  on  a  mechanic's  lien,  all 
the  material  facts  constituting  a  cause  of  action  must  be 
proven,^  and  what  is  a  material  fact  will,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
depend  upon  the  particular  statute  creating  the  lien.  Neces- 
sarily if  these  facts  are  not  proven,  the  right  will  fail.^  As 
a   general    rule,   plaintiff   must   prove   that   the    building  was 


8  Westhus  V.  Springmeyer,  52 
Mo.  220;  Wyman  v.  Quayle,  9 
Wyo.  326,  63  Pac.  988.  Where  an 
action  was  expressly  brought  to 
foreclose  and  enforce  a  material 
man's  lien,  and  the  petition 
thereon  contained  no  prayer  for 
any  relief  except  that  "said  lien 
be  set  up  and  established,"  a 
verdict,  finding  generally  in  the 
plaintiff's  favor  a  designated 
amount,  and  a  judgment  follow- 
ing the  same,  but  neither  of  them 
in  any  manner  referring  to  the 
lien  described  in  the  petition, 
were  unauthorized.  Ryals  v. 
Smith,  102  Ga.  768,  29     S.  B.  968. 

9  "The  line  of  distincton  be- 
tween an  uncertain  or  defective 
averment  of  a  material  fact  and 
a  total  want  of  such  averment 
is  well  defined  by  the  authorities, 
especially    in    this    state;    and    it 


has  been  uniformly  held  that,  if 
the  defect  in  the  averment  be 
merely  that  of  uncertainty,  it 
will  be  waived  by  failure  to  de- 
mur specially  on  the  ground  of 
uncertainty,  and,  of  course,  by  a 
default."  San  Joaquin  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Welton,  115  Cal.  1,  46  Pac.  735, 
1057. 

10  Whiting  v.  Koepke,  71  Conn. 
77,   40   Atl.   1053. 

11  Ludwig  V.  Huverstuhl,  108 
111.  App.  461;  Kewanee  Boiler  Co. 
V.  Genoa  Electric  Co.,  106  111. 
App.  230.     See  §§  254,  255. 

1  Cronkright  v.  ^Thomson,  1  E. 
D.    Smith    (N.    Y.)     661. 

2  Wynn  v.  South  River  Brick 
Co.,  99  Ga.  126,  24  S.  E.  869; 
Tomlinson  v.  Degraw,  26  N.  J.  L. 
73;  Donnelly  v.  Libby,  1  Sweeny 
(31  N.  Y.  Super.)  259. 


§252] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN, 


606 


on  the  land  sought  to  be  subjected  to  the  lien,^  and  that 
the  contracting  party  is  the  owner/  and  that  the  required 
statutory  notice  has  been  given,^  and  that  if  a  note  has  been 
given,  it  has  not  been  paid.*^  Some  statutes  require  a  descrip- 
tion of  notes  where  notes  are  given/  and  that  plaintiff  should 
allege  that  a  contract  was  entered  into  and  performed.* 
And  generally  it  may  be  reiterated  that  all  the  facts 
giving  the  right  to  a  lien  must  be  set  out.  Between 
several  claimants,  it  is  likewise  necessary  that  all  the  facts 
constituting  their  rights  should  be  shown.^  The  statutes 
sometimes,  one  fact  being  shown,  will  raise  a  presumption  as 
to  another.^*^  Generally,  however,  facts  that  are  properly 
averred  in  the  pleadings  and  not  denied  or  otherwise  disputed 
by  answer  are  presumed  to  be  true  (in  some  jurisdictions) 
without  further  proof  than  the  pleading.^^  Whatever  evi- 
dence or  proof  is  admissible  should  support  the  issue ;  if  not, 
it  should  be  rejected. ^^ 


3  Hutton  V.  Maines,  68  Iowa 
650,   28   N.   W.    9. 

4  Munster  v.  Doyle,  50  111.  App. 
672. 

5  Killlan  v.  Eigenmann,  57  Ind. 
480;  Wehr  v.  Shryock,  55  Md.  334; 
Roberts  v.  Miller,  32  Mich.  289; 
Noll  V.  Kenneally,  37  Neb.  879, 
56  N.  W.   722. 

6  Finch  V.  Redding,  4  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)    87. 

"  Ohio   Statutes,   see   §  81. 

8  Gunth,er  v.  Bennett,  72  Md. 
384,  19  Atl.  1048;  Willard  v.  Ma- 
goon,  30  Mich.  273;  Hauptman  v. 
Halsey,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.) 
668. 

9  In  a  contest  between  material 
men  and  subcontractors  for  the 
fruits  of  the  contract,  the  head 
contractor's  failure  to  dispute 
the  claims,  of  which  statutory  no- 


tice has  been  filed  with  the  own- 
er, and  by  him  with  the  head 
contractor,  is  not  prima  facie 
evidence  of  the  correctness  of 
such  claims  as  valid  liens,  as 
each  claimant  to  such  lien  must 
establish  every  element  necessary 
under  the  statute  to  the  validity 
of  his  claim  as  a  lien.  Bender  v. 
Stettinius,  10  Ohio  Dec.  (Re.)  186, 
19  Wkly.  Law  Bull.      (Ohio)    163. 

10  Vogel  V.  Luitwieler,  52  Hun 
(N.   Y.)    184,    5    N.    Y.    Supp.    154. 

iiWheelock  v.  Hull,  124  Iowa 
752,   100   N.   W.  863. 

12  Munger  v.  Green,  20  Ind.  38; 
Stapleton  v.  Mayer,  17  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  67,  39  N.  Y.  Supp.  845;  Bergs- 
ma  V.  Dewey,  46  Minn.  357,  49  N. 
W.  57;  Morowsky  v.  Rohrig,  4 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  167,  23  N.  Y.  Supp. 
880. 


607  MATTTERS  SPECIALLY  PLEADED.  [§253 

§  253.  Matter  to  be  specially  pleaded. — The  general  rule 
where  the  petition  states  a  good  cause  of  action  and  the  same 
is  admitted  to  be  true,  and  the  defendant  has  some  good  claim 
to  prevent  the  enforcement  of  the  lien  is  that  such  claim  must 
be  specially  pleaded.  It  can  not  be  raised  by  a  general  de- 
nial.^ Perhaps  upon  this  matter  the  courts  would  vary  in  their 
conclusions.  Some  courts  hold  that  a  defense  that  the  contract 
was  made  by  an  agent  without  authority,^  or  that  the  prop- 
perty  is  exempt  by  reason  of  being  a  homestead,^  or  that  the 
petitioner  is  a  guarantor  against  liens  on  the  property/  or 
that  there  is  a  prior  claim,^  or  that  the  action  w-as  not  begun 
within  the  time  required  by  law,  must  be  specially  pleaded 
and  cannot  be  proven  unless  so  pleaded.^  So  if  the  owner 
wishes  to  avail  himself  of  a  breach  of  the  contract  he  must 
plead  this  fact."  So  if  the  statute  requires  certain  matters 
to  be  set  up  in  a  defense,  proof  could  not  be  offered  if  the 
matter  is  omitted.^  If  a  case  should  be  tried  on  a  different 
theory   from   that  presented   by  the   petition,  it  is  proper  to 

Answer   for  debt   of  another. —  for  such  material  furnished.  Lee 

Where,    in    an    action    to    enforce  v.  Storz  Brewing  Co.,  75  Neb.  212, 

a     mechanic's     lien,     the    counsel  106  N.  W.  220. 

agree  that  the  material  was  fur-  2  Dickson    v.    Corbett,    11    Nev. 

nished    and   charged    to   the   con-  277. 

tractor   who   did    the    work,    it   is  3  Bergsma   v.    Dewey,    46   Minn, 

not  error  to  admit  evidence  of  a  357,  49  N.  W.  57. 

verbal    agreement    by   the   owner,  -i  Kelley  v.  Plover,  103  Cal.  35, 

who   was   the   original   defendant,  36  Pac.  1020. 

to  pay  for  such  materials  in  the  ^  Security    Mortgage,    «6;C.,    Co. 

absence  of  a  plea  of  the  statute  v.  Caruthers,  11  Tex.     Civ.  App. 

of    frauds.      Pool    v.    Wedemeyer,  430,  32  S.  W.  837. 

56  Tex.  287.  6  Tomlinson  v.   Degraw,     26  N. 

1  Hallahan  v.   Herbert,  11   Abb.  J.    L.    73. 

Pr.    (N.    S.)    (N.   Y.)    326,   4   Daly  7  Blethen  v.  Blake,  44  Cal.  117; 

(N.  Y.)  209.    A  general  denial  en-  Emmet  v.  Rotary  INIill  Co.,  2  Minn, 

tered  by  the  owner  of  a  building  286. 

in  a  proceeding  by  the  material-  8  Under      the      requirement     of 

man  to  enforce  his   lien   is   suffi-  Laws,    N.    Y.,    1885,    c.    342,    §    17, 

cient  to  put  the  materialman  on  that,    in   an   action   to   enforce    a 

proof  of  the  amount  actually  due  mechanic's  lien,  all  persons  who 


§253] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


608 


allow  a  defense  in  accord  with  the  theory  upon  which  it  is 
tried. ^  A  plea  of  payment  is  one  of  confession  and  avoidance 
and  admits  that  all  the  necessary  statutory  attempts  and 
steps  to  perfect  the  lien  have  been  taken. i*^  A  general  denial 
of  the  sale  of  the  material  for  the  purpose  alleged  and  of 
the  ownership  of  the  land,  will  serve  as  a  general  denial  and 
put  upon  the  plaintiff  the  burden  of  proving  the  existence  of  all 
the  necessary  facts  entitling  him  to  a  lien.^^  A  general  de- 
nial of  the  allegations  of  the  petition  requires  proof  of  every 
material  allegation  therein  not  admitted  of  record  to  be  true.^- 
But  a  mere  averment  that  the  defendants  are  not  liable,  has 
been  held  not  to  require  plaintift  to  prove  ownership  of  prop- 


shall  have  filed  notices  of  liens 
shall  set  their  claims  forth  by 
answer,  the  admission  of  proof, 
without  objection,  in  support  of 
a  claim,  does  not  dispense  with 
the  necessity  of  alleging  it  in 
the  answer.  Hondorf  v.  Atwater, 
75  Hun.  (N.  Y.)  369,  27  N.  Y. 
Supp.    447. 

9  Frazier  v.  McGuckin,  26  Jones 
&  Sp.,  (.58  N.  Y.  Super.)  71,  9  N. 
Y.  Supp.  435. 

10  St.  Clair  Coal  Co.  v.  INIartz, 
75  Pa.  St.  384;  Lybrandt  v.  Eb- 
erly,  36  Pa.  St.  347;  Lucas  v. 
Brockway  (Pa.),  13  Atl.  285; 
Lewis  V.  Morgan,  11  Sevg.  &  R. 
(Pa.)  234;  Geiss  v.  Rapp.  1  Walk. 
(Pa.)   Ill,  14  Leg.  Int.    (Pa.)    116. 

1 1  Premature  payments.  —  Code 
Civ.  Proc.  Cal.,  §  1184,  provides 
that  no  payment  made  on  a 
building  contract  prior  to  the 
time  when  the  same  is  due  under 
the  contract  shall  defeat  any  lien 
in  favor  of  any  one  save  the  con- 
tractor but  such  payment  shall  be 
deemed  as  if  not  made.  Held, 
that    where    payments    are    made 


on  a  contract  before  the  time  re- 
quired, and  a  material  man  sued 
to  establish  a  lien,  the  complaint 
alleging  that  there  was  due  the 
contractor  the  sum  prematurely 
paid,  the  allegation  (sufficiently 
raised  an  issue  as  to  the  prema- 
ture character  of  the  payment. 
Ganahl  v.  Weir,  130  Cal.  237,  62 
Pac.   512. 

General  denial. — The  general 
denial  puts  in  issue  only  issuable 
facts,  and  where,  in  an  action  to 
enforce  a  mechanic's  lien,  the 
complaint  alleges  that  the  de- 
fendant has  or  claims  an  interest 
in  the  land  which  is  subject  to 
the  lien,  this  allegation  is  wholly 
immaterial,  and  a  general  denial 
does  not  amount  to  a  disclaimer 
of  such  interest,  but  only  puts  in 
issue  the  fact  that  it  was  subject 
to  the  lien.  Elder  v.  Spinks,  53 
Cal.  293. 

12  Hassett  v.  Curtis,  20  Neb. 
162,  29  N.  W.  295.  The  defendant, 
under  the  general  denial,  is  not 
confined  to  negative  proof  in  de- 
nial of  the  facts,  independent  of 


609 


VARIANCE PLEADINGS    AND    STATEMENT. 


[§254 


erty.^3  Under  general  denial  defendant  has  been  allowed  to 
show  that  he  furnished  part  of  the  materials/^  or  that  the 
contract  has  not  been  performed/^  or  is  not  executed  as  re- 
quired by  law.^*^ 

§  254.  Variance  between  pleadings  and  papers  necessary 
to  perfect  lien. — Under  most  of  the  statutes  the  plaintiff  is  en- 
titled to  a  lien  only  where  he  has  given  certain  notices  or 
filed  certain  claims,  or  performed  certain  other  conditions  re- 
quired by  the  statute.  The  proper  performance  of  these  acts 
are  conditions  precedent  upon  which  rests  the  right  to  the 
lien,  and  it  is  necessary  that  the  petition  contain  averments 
that  are  in  accord  with  these  necessary  conditions  precedent. 
But  a  variance  between  them  will  not  prevent  a  recovery  unless 
it  is  a  material  one.  Thus,  the  fact  that  the  property  is  not 
described  in  the  same  terms  in  the  petition  as  in  the  statement, 
will  not  amount  to  a  fatal  variance,  provided  it  can  be  identi- 
fied to  be  the  same.^  The  variance  has  been  held  fatal  in  cases 
where  the  lien  account  set  out  a  lump  sum  on  one  house  and 


those  alleged  in  the  complaint 
and  inconsistent  therewith.  Jef- 
fersonville  Water-Supply  Co.  v. 
Riter,  146  Ind.   521,  45  N.  E.   697. 

13  Cornell  v.  Matthews,  27  N.  J. 
L.  522.  The  validity  of  a  sub- 
contractor's mechanic's  lien  is  not 
put  in  issue  by  a  plea  of  "no  lien 
and  non-assumpsit."  Thorn 
Bros.  V.   Shields,  8   Pa.   Dist.  129. 

14  Close  V.  Clark,  16  Daly  (N. 
Y.)    91,   9  N.  Y.   Supp.     538. 

15  Moritz  V.  Larsen,  70  "Wis. 
569,  36  N.  W.  331. 

ic  Security  Mortgage  &  Trust 
Co.  V.  Caruthers,  11  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
430,  32  S.  W.  837.  Matters  raised 
on  reply,  can  be  proved  the  same 
as  if  raised  on  answer.  Banks  v. 
Moshier,  73  Conn.  448,  47  Atl.  656. 


1  California, — Brunner  v.  Marks, 
98    Cal.    374,    33    Pac.    265. 

Massachusetts. — Rice  v.  Nan- 
tasket  Co.,  140  Mass.  256,  5  N.  E. 
524;  Bristow  v.  Evans,  124  Mass. 
548. 

Michigan. — Hannah,  &c.,  Mer- 
cantile Co.  V.  Hartzell,  125  Mich. 
177,  84  N.  W.  52,  7  Det.  Leg.  N. 
470. 

Missouri. — ^Stone  v.  Taylor,  72 
Mo.   App.   482. 

Oregon. — Joshua  Handy  Mach. 
Works  V.  Pacific  Cable  Const.  Co., 
24  Ore.  152,  33  Pac.  403 

There  is  no  variance  between 
a  notice  of  a  mechanic's  lien  and 
a  petition  to  enforce  it  because 
the  land  is  described  in  one  as 
"lot  No.   4,  in  K's   addition,"  and 


39 


254] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


610 


the  petition  alleged  a  lump  sum  on  three  houses  f  where  the 
contracting  parties  were  not  the  same,  and  the  defect  was 
not  corrected  in  time/^  and  where  the  claim  set  forth  a  contract 
to  deliver  at  reasonable  market  rates  and  the  petition  set  out 
an  express  contract  to  pay  a  fixed  price. ^  But  a  variance 
would  not  be  held  fatal  where  there  is  such  resemblance  be- 
tween the  averments  of  the  claim  as  filed  and  those  contained 
in  the  petition  that  no  one  is  prejudiced  thereby.^  All  the 
papers  should  be  construed  together  in  determining  whether 
there  is  a  variance  or  not.^ 


as  "lot  No.  4,  in  K's  Third  Addi- 
tion," in  the  other,  since  the  one 
series  of  numbering  may  include 
all  the  lots.  Duckwall  v.  Jones, 
»156  Ind.  682,  58  N.  E.  1055,  60  N. 
E.  797".  If  the  court  with  the  ju- 
dicial knowledge  it  has  can 
identify  the  same  it  is  sufficient. 
White  V.  Stanton,  111  Ind.  540,  13 
N.  E.  48.  In  the  notice  of  a  me- 
chanic's lien,  lot  9  was  by  mis- 
take named,  instead  of  lot  11; 
but  the  complaint  referred  to  the 
mistake,  and  alleged  that  the  only 
buildng  built  for  or  owned  by  de- 
fendants was  on  lot  11,  instead  of 
lot  9,  and  could  be  easily  identi- 
fied by  the  description  in  the  no- 
tice. The  complaint  was  good. 
Newcomer  v.  Hutchings,  96  Ind. 
119. 

2  Poppert  V.  "SVright,  52  ~Slo. 
App.  576. 

3  Leiegne  v.  Schwarzler,  67 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  130,  10  Daly  (N. 
Y.)    547. 

4  Buell  V.  Brown,  131  Cal.  15S, 
63   Pac.   167. 

5  California. — Brunner  v.  IMarks, 
98  Cal.  374,  33  Pac.  265;   Reed  v. 


Norton,  90  Cal.  590,  26  Pac.  767, 
27   Pac.   426. 

Indiana. — Newhouse  v.  IMorgan, 
127  Ind.  436,  26  N.  E.  158. 

Ohio. — Kunkle  v.  Reeser,  5 
Ohio  N.  P.  401. 

Utah.— Culmer  v.  Clift,  14  Utah 
286,  47   Pac.  85. 

IVisconsin. — North  v.  La  Flesh, 
73  Wis.  520,  41  N.  W.  633. 

Time  and  the  amount  claimed 
immaterial.  Badenoch  v.  Hoff- 
man, 50  111.  App.  512.  Where  the 
complaint  states  the  whole 
amount  of  labor  and  materials 
furnished,  and  the  certificate 
states  only  the  balance  due,  the 
variance  is  immaterial.  Nicols  v. 
Culver,  51  Conn.  177.  A  lien  ac- 
count showing  that  part  of  the 
materials  furnished  were  of  the 
agreed  value  of  $2,585,  and  part 
of  the  reasonable  value  of  $110 
is  not  inconsistent  with  a  com- 
plaint alleging  that  the  goods 
were  of  the  agreed  and  reason- 
able value  of  $2,985.  Bardwell 
V.  Anderson,  13  ^Nlont.  87,  32  Pac. 
285. 

6  Twitchell  v.  Devens,  45  Mo. 
App.  283. 


611 


VARIANCE AVERMENT   AND    PROOF. 


[§255 


§  255.     Variance  between  averments    and    proof. — In    the 

previous  section  we  have  referred  more  particularly  to  the 
variance  that  may  be  presented  between  the  averments  in 
the  petition  and  the  allegations  that  were  contained  in  a 
statement  or  condition  precedent  that  was  required  to  be  per- 
formed in  order  that  the  right  to  the  lien  might  exist.  In 
this  section  we  will  treat  more  especially  of  the  variance 
between  the  pleadings  and  the  proof  or  evidence  that  may  be 
ofifered  from  other  sources.  The  rule  is  a  familiar  one  that  the 
proof  must  correspond  with  the  averments  or  the  allegations 
in  the  pleadings.^  But  the  variance  to  have  the  effect  of  de- 
feating the  recovery  must  be  a  material  variance ;  such  a 
one  as  misleads  the  opposite  party .^    There  can  be  no  variance 


1  Trueblood  v.  Shellhouse,  19 
Ind.  App.  91,  49  N.  E.  47;  Long 
Island  Brick  Co.  v.  Arnold,  18  R. 
I.  455,  28  Atl.  801.  Petition  avers 
lump  job  for  $185;  proof  shows 
price  fixed  at  $125;  variance. 
Stein  V.  Schultz,  23  111.  599.  Pe- 
tition avers  work  done  for  con- 
tractor; proof  shows  done  direct- 
ly for  owner;  variance.  La  Pasta 
V.  Weil,  20  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  554, 
46  N.  Y.  Supp.  275.  "Owner"  and 
"contractor"  not  the  same.  Haupt- 
man  v.  Halsey,  1  E.  D.  Smith  (N. 
Y.)  668.  "Verbal"  and  "written 
contract"  a  variance.  Pierce  v. 
Barnes,  106  111.  App.  241.  Failure 
to  prove  ownership.  Munster  v. 
Doyle,  50  111.  App.  672.  A  va- 
riance between  the  record  and 
the  evidence  as  to  the  value  of 
the  materials  furnished  and  the 
way  in  which  they  were  pur- 
chased and  furnished,  is  immate- 
rial. Reed  v.  Norton,  90  Cal.  590, 
26  Pac.  767,  27  Pac.  426.  Notice 
filed  with  owner,  not  the  name  as 


notice  filed  with  clerk  of  court. 
Baumbach  Co.  v.  Laube,  99  Wis. 
171,  74  N.  W.  96.  Husband  and 
wife  not  same.  Jennings  v.  Hug- 
gins,  125  Ga.  338,  54  S.  E.  169. 

2  California. — McClain  v.  Hut- 
ton,  131  Cal.  132,  63  Pac.  182; 
Coss  V.  McDonough,  111  Cal.  662, 
,  44  Pac.  325. 

Indiana. — Kealing  v.  Voss,  61 
Ind.  466. 

Massachusetts. — Dodge  v.  Hall, 
168  Mass.  435,  47  N.  E.  110. 

Oregon. — Osborn  v.  Logus,  28 
Ore.  302,  42  Pac.  997. 

Wasliington. — Powell  v.  Nolan, 
27  Wash.  318,  67  Pac.  712. 

On  or  about  August  1,  1901,  and 
proof  of  June  15,  1901,  no  vari- 
ance. Toan  V.  Russell,  111  111. 
App.  629.  A  lien  claim  for  ma- 
terial furnished  for  a  "one-story 
refrigerating  machine  building 
and  boiler  house"  is  not  at  vari- 
ance with  proof  that  there  were 
two  buildings  on  the  ground, 
where  it  is  shown  that  they  were 


§255] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


612 


as  to  such  matters  as  do  not  require  proof.^  Objection  should 
be  made  at  the  time  the  evidence  is  introduced,  so  that  the 
party  may  obtain  leave  to  amend.'*  The  evidence  introduced 
on  trial  must  establish  the  contract  and  its  terms  as  alleged 
in  the  petition.^     But  slight  discrepancies  as  to  the  amounts 


so  substantially  connected  as  to 
make  but  one  building,  and  that 
there  could  be  no  mistake  as  to 
the  identity  of  the  structure. 
Peterman  v.  Milwaukee  Brewing 
Co.,  11  Wash.  199,  39  Pac.  452. 
A  variance  of  four  days  between 
the  lien  statement  and  the  proof, 
as  to  the  day  on  which  the  claim- 
ant completed  his  work,  the  state- 
ment being  filed  within  the  pre- 
scribed period  of  time  in  any 
event,  is  immaterial.  Althen  v. 
Tarbor,  48  Minn.  18.  In  a  suit 
to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien 
against  defendant  as  owner  of  the 
land,  proof  that  he  was  owner  of 
the  building  with  a  right  to  re- 
move, and  tenant  for  years  of  the 
land,  held  not  to  show  a  fatal 
variance.  McCarty  v.  Burnett, 
84   Ind.   23. 

3  Wisconsin  Red  Pressed  Brick 
Co.  V.  St.  Peter  St.  Imp.  Co.,  46 
Minn.  231,  48  N.  W.  1022. 

^Akers  v.  Kirk,  91  Ga.  590,  18 
S.  E.  366. 

5  California. — Reed  v.  Norton, 
99  Cal.  617,  34  Pac.  333;  Eaton 
V.  Maletesta,  92  Cal.  75,  28  Pac. 
54. 

Illinois. — Belanger  v.  Hersey, 
90  111.  70;  Randolph  v.  Onstott, 
58  111.  52;  Austin  v.  Wohler,  5  111. 
App.    300. 

Massachnsetts.  —  Wilder  v. 
French,  75  Mass  393. 


Missouri. — Jodd  v.  Duncan,  9 
Mo.  App.  417. 

"Reasonable  value"  not  same 
as  fixed  price.  Wilson  v.  Hind, 
113  Cal.  357,  45  Pac.  695.  $3.50 
per  day,  not  same  as  reasonable 
price,  which  proof  showed  to  be 
$2.84.  Jones  v.  Shuey  (Cal.),  40 
Pac.  17.  Contract  made  with 
"husband  and  wife"  not  support- 
ed evidence  of  contract  with  hus- 
band alone.  Palmer  v.  Lavigne. 
104  Cal.  30,  37  Pac.  775.  "Agreed 
price"  and  no  price  agreed  upon, 
a  variance.  Wagner  v.  Hansen, 
103  Cal.  104,  37  Pac.  195.  No  time 
for  payment,  and  evidence  show- 
ing payment  to  be  within  fixed 
time;  variance.  McClain  v.  Hut- 
ton,  131  Cal.  132,  61  Pac. 
273.  A  party  cannot  make 
one  case  by  his  pleading 
and  another  by  his  evidence. 
Bush  v.  Connelly,  33  111.  447.  In 
an  action  by  a  subcontractor,  the 
complaint  alleged  a  performance 
of  the  contract  by  the  contractor. 
It  was  proper  to  exclude  evidence 
to  show  a  substantial  perform- 
ance, consisting  of  a  completion 
by  the  owner  according  to  a  pro- 
vision in  the  building  contract 
providing  therefor  on  failure  of 
the  contractor  to  do  so.  Beecher 
V.  Schuback,  158  N.  Y.  687,  53  N. 
E.  1123.  A  complaint  alleged 
that  plaintiff  was  to  receive  5 
per  cent,  of  the  total  cost  of  the 


613 


EVIDENCE — RULES  AND  PRESUMPTIONS. 


[§256 


due,*^  or  as  to  the  time  of  delivery  of  material  are  not  fatal  where 
no  one  is  misIedJ  But  if  the  petition  avers  that  the  contract 
v^as  made  with  two,  and  the  evidence  shows  that  it  was  made 
with  one,  the  variance  will  be  fatal,^  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that,  in  fact,  all  the  parties  are  liable.^  A  petitioner  cannot 
.abandon  the  averments  of  the  contract  and  recover  on  a 
quantum  meruit. ^"^ 

§  256.  Evidence — Rules  and  presumptions. — The  general 
rules  of  evidence  in  actions  of  foreclosure  of  mechanics' 
liens  are  the  same  as  those  in  actions  generally  of  like 
character.  Here  as  in  other  cases  when  a  certain  condition 
of  affairs  is  shown  to  exist  certain  other  matters  will  be  pre- 
sumed without  any  proof.  Hence  if  it  is  shown  that  a  ma- 
terial man  furnished  certain  material  for  a  person  whom  he 
knows  is  erecting  a  building  it  will  be  presumed  that  the  ma- 
terials were  furnished  for  that  building.^    And  if  it  is  shown 


building  for  services  as  superin- 
tendent. The  evidence  showed 
that  he^  was  to  receive  $25  a 
week  and  the  5  per  cent,  com- 
mission. A  fatal  variance.  Fisch- 
er V.  Hanna,  47  Pac.  303,  8  Colo. 
App.   471. 

6  Chicago  Lumber  Co.  v.  New- 
comb,  19  Colo.  App.  265,  74  Pac. 
786.  Erection  of  barn  in  addition 
to  house,  etc.  Reiss  v.  Schemer, 
87  111.  App.  84;  Wrought-Iron 
Bridge  Co.  v.  York  Mfg.  Co.,  11 
York  Leg.  Rec.  (Pa.)   45. 

7  Wolfley  v.  Hughes,  8  Ariz. 
203,  71  Pac.  951;  San  Pedro 
Lumber  Co.  v.  West,  2  Cal.  App. 
757,  86  Pac.  993. 

8  Garrison  v.  Hawkins  Lumber 
Co.,  Ill  Ala.  308,  20  So.  427;  Mc- 
Adow  V.  Miltenberger,  75  Mo. 
App.  346;  Thurston  v.  Schroeder, 
6    R.    I.    272;    Cocciola    v.    Wood- 


Dickerson    Supply   Co.    (Ala.),    44 
So.   541. 

9  That  a  joint  contract  was  al- 
leged with  the  owner  of  a  build- 
ing and  a  contractor,  under 
which  plantiffs  claimed  to  have 
furnished  materials,  while  the 
evidence  showed  only  a  several 
contract  with  the  owner,  cannot 
be  urged  by  the  owner  as  a  de- 
fense, since  in  either  event  he  is 
liable.  Kruger  v.  Braender,  3 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  275,  23  N.  Y.  Supp. 
324.  Co-partners  and  co-tenants 
same.  Merritt  v.  Crane  Co.,  126 
111.  App.  337,  judgment  modified, 
225  111.  181,  80  N.  E.  103. 

10  Carroll  v.  Craine,  9  111.  563; 
Beattys  v.  Searles,  74  App.  Div. 
(N.   Y.)    214,   77   N.   Y.   Supp.   497. 

1  Kunkle  v.  Reeser,  5  Ohio  N. 
P.  401.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit. 
Mechanics'  Liens,  §  279. 


§256] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


614 


that  he  otherwise  complied  with  the  statutes,  as  by  making 
the  contract  with  the  proper  person,  it  will  be  presumed 
that  he  furnished  the  materials  on  the  credit  of  the  building.^ 
And  if  a  person  is  shown  to  have  been  the  owner  of  the 
property  upon  which  the  lien  is  sought  to  be  foreclosed,  a 
short  time  before  the  attachment  of  the  lien,  he  will  be  pre- 
sumed to  be  the  owner  at  the  time  the  lien  attached.^  Persons 
holding  the  legal  title  are  presumed  to  have  the  power  to 
contract  for  the  lien.'*  If  it  is  shown  that  the  materials  were 
furnished  at  different  times  at  appropriate  stages  of  the  build- 
ing operations,  it  will  be  presumed  that  they  were  furnished 
under  one  continuous  contract.-''  But  this  will  not  be  true  if 
the  work  is  distinct  and  separate  in  its  nature,^  or  if  an  unusual 
length  of  time  has  intervened  between  the  items.  However, 
evidence  may  be  introduced  to  show  that  although  a  consider- 
able length  of  time  intervenes,  or  the  different  items  were  of  a 
distinct  character,  yet  all  were  furnished  under  one  contract.'^ 
The  mere  acceptance  of  a  promissory  note  will  not  raise  a 
presumption  that  the  lien  is  waived,^  or  that  the  time  for 
payment  of  materials   will   be   extended  to  that  time.^     The 


2  Rider-Ericsson  Engine  Co.  v. 
Fredericks,  25   Pa.   Super.  Ct.   72. 

3  Badger  Lumber  Co.  v.  Muehle- 
bach,  109  Mo.  App.  646,  83  S.  W. 
546. 

4  Wlien  trustees  holding  the 
legal  title  to  land  for  the  mem- 
bers of  a  religious  society,  and 
having  power,  with  the  consent 
of  the  society,  to  charge  the 
property  with  debts,  cause  a 
church  to  be  erected  on  the  land, 
it  is  presumed,  in  an  action  to 
foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien  upon 
the  property  for  material  fur- 
nished in  the  erection  of  the 
church,  the  society  consented  to 
the  erection  of  the  building.    Har- 


risburg  Lumber  Co.  v.  "Washburn, 
29  Ore.  150,  44  Pac.  390. 

5  Kizer  Lumber  Co.  v.  Mosley, 
56  Ark.  554,  20  S.  W.  409. 

C'  Page  V.  Bettes,  17  Mo.  App. 
366. 

"  Hansen  v.  Kinney,  46  Neb. 
207,  64  N.  W.  710;  Buchanan  v. 
Selden,  43  Neb.  559,  61  N.  W.  732; 
Cornell  v.  Kime  (Neb.),  89  N.  W. 
254. 

s  Waiver,  see  §§  173  et  seq. 

9  Therefore,  where  material 
men  took  from  a  contractor  his 
notes,  receipting  for  them  as  "in 
full  for  brick  delivered  to  a 
church,"  against  which  they  filed 
their  lien,  and  proceeded  upon  it 


615 


EVIDENCE BURDEN  OF  PROOF. 


[§257 


Statute  having  been  complied  with  as  to  the  performance  of 
conditions  required  to  create  a  lien,  the  presumption  is  that  the 
plaintiff's  claim  is  made  under  the  mechanic's  lien  law.^'^ 

§  257.  Evidence — Burden  of  proof. — It  is  a  well-settled 
rule  that  the  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  the  plaintiiT  in  all 
matters  in  which  he  holds  the  affirmative  and  upon  the  de- 
fendant upon  any  matters  which  he  aifirms  by  way  of  defense.^ 
Among  other  things  the  burden  is  on  the  plaintiff  to  show 
that  there  is  a  debt  due,^  notwithstanding  the  law  is 
liberally  construed,^'^  that   the   claim   is    for    work    done    or 


before  the  notes  became  due,  and 
it  was  found  by  the  jury  that  the 
notes  were  not  received  in  satisfac- 
tion of  the  debt,  it  was  held  that  a 
binding  agreement,  that  the  plain- 
tiffs were  not  to  sue  for  the  orig- 
inal debt  until  the  notes  matured, 
could  not  be  implied  from  the 
transaction.  Shaw  v.  First  As- 
sociated Reformed  Presbyterian 
Church,  '39  Pa.  St.  226. 

10  Wagner  v.  McMillen,  72  Wis. 
327,  39  N.  W.  777. 

1  Arkansas. — Central  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Braddock  Land  &  Granite 
Co.,  84  Ark.  560,  105  S.  W.  583. 

Missouri. — Hormann  v.  Wirtel, 
59  Mo.  App.   646. 

Jfew  York. — Lawrence  v.  Con- 
gregational Church  of  Greenfield, 
Long  Island,  164  N.  Y.  115,  58  N. 
E.  24. 

Pennsylvania. — Noar  v.  Gill,  111 
Pa.  488,  4  Atl.  552. 

West  Virginia,— United  States 
Blowpipe  Co.  V.  Spencer,  61  W. 
Va.  191,  56  S.  E.  345. 

'Sevf  contract. — Where,  in  an 
action  to  enforce   a  lien  for  fur- 


nishing brick  under  a  contract, 
the  defendant  pleads  a  new 
contract  substituted  for  the 
original  one,  the  burden  is  on 
him  to  prove  it.  Kruegel  v. 
Kitahen,  33  Wash.  214,  74  Pac. 
373.  Plaintiff  bound  by  his  ad- 
missions as  to  contract  for  price 
of  material.  Yaukey  v.  Buck- 
man,  18  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  378. 

Exceeds  amount. — It  is  not  nec- 
essary for  a  lien  claimant  to 
show  that  the  quantity  of  land 
on  which  the  lien  is  claimed  is 
within  the  statutory  limit.  If 
the  defendant  claim  that  it  ex- 
ceeds that  limit,  he  must  show  it, 
and  the  court  must  then  carve 
out  a  tract  within  the  limit,  and 
confine  the  lien  to  it.  Boyd  v. 
Blake,  42  Minn.  1,  43  N.  W.  485. 
Prima  facie  case.  Long  v.  Abeles 
&  Co.,  77  Ark.  156,  93  S.  W.  67. 

2  Haswell  v.  Goodchild,  12 
Wend.   (N.  Y.)   373. 

2-1  Brant  v.  City  of  New  York, 
186  N.  Y.  599,  79  N.  E.  1101; 
Brandt  v.  Burke,  110  App.  Div. 
(N.   Y.)    396,   97   N.   Y.   Supp.   280. 


§257] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


616 


materials  furnished  on  or  abo'ut  a  certain  date,^  and  that  the 
lien  statement  was  properly  made  and  filed  pursuant  to 
statute,"*  and  within  the  required  time.^  The  burden  is  on 
the  plaintifif  to  establish  all  jurisdictional  facts. ^  If  the  plain- 
tiff avers  that  the  contract  was  made  by  an  agent  he  must 
show  that  fact.'^  Where  the  statute  provides  a  method  for 
the  owner  to  pursue  the  burden  is  on  the  owner  to  show  that 
he  has  complied  with  the  statute.*  So  where  an  action  is 
brought  by  a  subcontractor,  burden  is  upon  him  to  prove  all 
facts  upon  which  his  rights  exist,^     It  will  not  be  sufficient 


3  Eastmore  v.  Bunkley,  113  Ga. 
637,  39  S.  E.  105;  Darlington  v. 
Eldridge,  88  Mo.  App.  525.  In  a 
proceeding  to  enforce  a  mechan- 
ic's lien  against  several  different 
blocks  of  houses,  separated  by 
public  streets,  the  burden  is  on 
claimant  to  prove  all  the  facts 
necessary  to  make  good  his  lien 
against  any  or  all  of  the  prop- 
erty. Bradley  Co.  v.  Gagham, 
208   Pa.   511,   57   Atl.   985. 

4  Stidger  v.  McPhee,  15  Colo. 
App.  252,  62  Pac.  332;  Landvoight 
v.  Melovich,  1  App.  (D.  C.)  498; 
Noar  v.  Gill,  111  Pa.  488,  4  Atl. 
552. 

5  Wilson  v.  Wilson,  51  Md.  159; 
Darlington  v.  Eldridge,  88  Mo. 
App.  525;  Wees  v.  Elbon,  61  W. 
Va.  380,  56  S.  E.  611;  Foley  v. 
Coon,  41  Colo.  432,  93  Pac.  13. 

6  McGlauflin  v.  Wormser,  28 
Mont.  177,  72  Pac.  428. 

Prima  facie  case  as  to  amount 
due. — After  the  plaintiff,  who  is  a 
subcontractor,  has  shown  that  the 
work  has  been  performed  accord- 
ing to  the  contract,  the  amount 
stipulated  by  the  contract  is  held 
prima    face    to    be    due    the    con- 


tractor. The  onus  of  proving 
that  it  is  not  due  rests  with  the 
defendant.  Rudd  v.  Davis,  1  Hill. 
(N.  Y.)  277.  The  burden  is  on 
plaintiff  to  show  compliance  spe- 
cifying the  steps  required  to  ini- 
tiate a  lien.  Poland  v.  Webster, 
126   Mo.   App.    591,   105   S.   W.   34. 

7  One  claiming  a  mechanic's 
lien  for  services  rendered  at  the 
request  of  another  than  the  own- 
er has  the  burden  to  prove  such 
other's  agency.  The  presump- 
tion arising  from  the  owner's 
knowledge  of  the  work  which  was 
to  be,  and  was  done,  and  from 
her  furnishing  part  of  the  funds 
to  pay  for  it,  may  be  rebutted. 
SUinn  v.  Matheny,  48  111.  App. 
135;  Anderson  v.  Volmer,  83  Mo. 
403;  Title  Guarantee  &  Trust  Co. 
V.  Wrenn,  35  Ore.  62,  56  Pac.  271. 

8  Under  Laws,  1889,  c.  200,  §  5, 
the  onus  of  proof,  as  to  serving 
or  posting  notice  to  protect  his 
property  from  mechanics'  liens, 
is  on  the  owner.  McCausland  v. 
West  Duluth  Land  Co.,  51  Minn. 
246,  53  N.  W.  464. 

9  Wookey  v.  Slemmons,  65  111. 
App.   553;    Madden  v.   Lennon,   23 


617 


EVIDENCE — ADMISSIBILITY. 


[§258 


to  assume  that  necessary  conditions  have  been  complied  with.^*^ 
An  owner  completing  a  building  under  a  contract  allowing 
him  to  do  so  on  default  of  the  contractor  and  then  deduct 
the  cost,  is  not  obliged  to  show  a  completion  according  to 
specifications,  in  an  action  by  a  subcontractor,^^  but  must 
show  actual  cost  of  completing  same.^^ 

§  258.  Evidence — Admissibility — General  rule — Ownership 
of  premises. — Mechanics'  lien  statutes,  as  a  general  rule,  do 
not  prescribe  the  kind  of  evidence  that  is  necessary  to  estab- 
lish or  defeat  the  cause  of  action ;  this  matter  is  left  to  be 
determined  by  the  general  laws  of  the  forum  in  which  the 
action  is  pending.^  If  a  matter  is  immaterial  or  irrelevant, 
it  cannot  be  shown.^     But  whatever  tends  to  establish  a  plain- 


Misc.  (N.  Y.)  704,  52  N.  Y.  Supp. 
8;  Camden  Wood-Turning  Co.  v. 
Malcolm,  190  Pa.  St.  62,  42  Atl. 
458.  Must  show  existing  indebt- 
edness. Merritt  v.  Crane  Co., 
126  111.  App.  337.  Architect's  cer- 
tificate as  to  completion.  Chicago 
Lumber  &  Coal  Co.  v.  Garner,  132 
Iowa  282,  109  N.  W.  780;  Knud- 
son-Hacob  Co.  v.  Brandt,  44 
Wash.  68,  87  Pac.  43. 

10  Where  lumber  was  furnished 
by  plaintiff  to  a  contractor,  who 
was  at  the  time  building  defend- 
ant's house,  and  two  others,  the 
evidence  of  plaintiff  that  he 
thought  about  $210  worth  of 
lumber,  corresponding  to  that 
sold  by  him  to  the  contractor, 
was  used  in  defendant's  house, 
does  not  justify  a  finding  that 
$210  worth  of  lumber  was  so 
used.  Johnson  v.  Simmons,  123 
Ala.  564,  26  So.  650. 

iiBeecher  v.  Schuback,  158  N. 
Y.  687,  53  N.  E.  1123.  Burden  is 
on   the   owner   to   establish   what 


damage,  if  any,  should  be  award- 
ed him  in  mitigation  of  the 
amount  claimed  by  way  of  lien. 
Miller  v.  Calumet  Lumber  &  Mfg. 
Co.,  22  111.  App.  56. 

12  Martin  v.  Flahive,  112  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  347,  98  N.  Y.  Supp. 
577. 

1  Church  V.  Davis,  9  Watts 
(Pa.)  304.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig. 
tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  280. 

2  For  materials  furnished  the 
lessee,  the  amount  of  rent  due  the 
lessor  by  the  lessee  is  not  ad- 
missible in  evidence.  Rothe  v. 
Bellingrath,  71  Ala.  55.  In  an 
action  by  a  contractor,  evidence 
is  not  admissible  as  to  the  dif- 
ference between  the  value  of  the 
building  as  it  was  finshed  and  as 
it  should  have  been  finished, 
where  there  was  evidence  that 
the  defects  could  be  remedied. 
Brunold  v.  Glasser,  53  N.  Y.  Supp. 
1021,  25  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  285. 
Where  the  complaint  did  not  al- 
lege    that     the     contractor     had 


258] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


618 


tiff's  cause  of  action,^  or  defendant's  defense,  is  admissible/ 
unless  the  opposite  party  by  his  plea  has  admitted  it  to  be 
true."^  For  the  purpose  of  showing  a  subsequent  purchaser's 
relation  to  the  case,  he  may  be  asked  if  he  has  not  by  reason 
of  the  lien  refused  to  pay  for  the  premises.^  Where  a  judg- 
ment has  been  rendered  declaring  a  lien  on  the  property, 
the  contractor  can  not  object  to  the  admission  of  the  same 
in  an  action  against  him  by  the  owner  for  money  paid  by  the 
owner  by  virtue  of  such  judgment."  Upon  the  question  of 
ownership  it  is  competent  to  put  in  evidence  the  lease  made 
to  defendant  during  the  time  the  materials  were  furnished, 
provided,  of  course,  the  lease  may  affect  the  liability  of  the 
owner.^  But  evidence  of  ownership  at  time  of  trial  is  irrele- 
vant, as  it  is  the  ownership  which  exists  at  the  time  the  lien  at- 
taches that  generally  affects  the  right  of  recovery.^  But 
there  may  be  instances  when  this  evidence  would  be  com- 
petent, as  where  the  owner  has  sold  the  premises  and  the 
purchaser  has  assumed  the  lien  or  where  the  property  had 
been  fraudulently  conveyed,  then  the  petitioner  may  treat 
either  the  grantor  or  the  grantee  as  the  owner,  and  evidence 


promised  to  pay  a  subcontractor's 
indebtedness  to  his  workmen,  nor 
were  any  facts  alleged  on  which 
to  base  a  finding  of  such  a  prom- 
ise, evidence  of  such  a  promise 
was  inadmissible.  Murphy  v. 
Hardiman,  99  N.  Y.  St.  6,  112  App. 
Div.  690. 

3  Ottiwell  V.  Watkins,  1.5  Daly 
(N.  Y.)  309,  6  N.  Y.  Supp.  518. 
Was  not  a  mechanic.  Gaskill  v. 
Davis,  66  Ga.  665.  Where  de- 
fendant's inspector  and  time- 
keeper, in  the  course  of  business, 
gave  statements  to  plaintiff  of 
the  date  and  amount  of  each 
day's  work,  such  statements  were 
admissible  to  show  when  plaintiff 


did  the  work,  and  that  his  suit 
was  not  barred  by  the  statute  of 
limitations.  Williams  v.  Lane,  87 
Wis.  152,  58  N.  W.  77. 

4  Powell  V.  Nolan,  27  Wash. 
318,  67  Pac.  712;  Thayer  v.  Wil- 
liams,   65   Mo.    App.    673. 

5  Royal  V.  McPhail,  97  Ga.  457, 
25  S.  E.  512;  Linck  v.  Johnson, 
134  Cal.  xix,  66  Pac.  674. 

'5  Goulding  v.  Smith,  114  Mass. 
487. 

"  Menefee  v.  Beverforden,  95 
Mo.  App.  105,  68  S.  W.  972. 

8  Wilson  V.  Merryman,  48  Md. 
328. 

9  Coats  V.  Dickenson,  5  Alb.  L. 
J.  (n!  Y.)  333. 


619  EVIDENCE CONTRACT WORK.  [§  259 

will  be  competent  to  show  that  he  was  the  owner  either  at 
the  time  the  lien  attached  or  at  the  time  of  the  foreclosure. ^"^ 
If  there  is  a  question  whether  the  lien  covers  two  lots,  evi- 
dence of  the  action  of  the  owner  in  his  use  of  the  lots  will  be 
competent.^i 

§  259.     Evidence — Kind  and  value  of  work — Contract. — If 

the  plaintiff  introduces  evidence  that  the  work  is  well  done, 
the  defendant  may  show  that  it  was  not  well  done,^  and  he  may 
show  that  plaintiff  charges  for  more  material  than  could  have 
gone  into  the  building.^  Evidence  is  sometimes  admissible 
of  work  not  covered  by  the  lien  where  such  evidence  makes 
clear  the  nature  of  the  w^ork  for  which  the  lien  is  sought.^* 
However,  under  some  statutes  such  evidence  might  not  be 
competent  if  the  material  was  actually  purchased  for  the 
building.3  Where  the  contract  is  abandoned,  the  defendant 
may  show  the  value  of  the  work,  taking  into  consideration 
the  contract  price  and  the  sum  required  to  complete  the  con- 
tract."* The  lien  statement  is  admissible  even  as  against  the 
owner  to  show  the  value  of  the  materials  furnished  where  the 
witness  Who  ordered  the  goods  testified  that  it  was  a  correct 
statement  of  the  account. i*'  If  the  materials  are  of  such  a 
kind  that  a  careful  and  skillful  man  acquainted  with  the  build- 
ing for  which  they  were  designed,  might  properly  believe  that 
they  could   be   used  in  its  construction,  and  if,  in   fact,  they 

10  Amidon  v.  Benjamin,  126  3  Woolsey  v.  Bohn,  41  Minn. 
Mass.   276.                                                     235,  42  N.  W.  1022. 

11  Pollock  V.  Morrison,  176  4  Mac  Donald  v.  Hayes,  132  Cal. 
Mass.  83,  57  N.  E.  326.                             490,   64   Pac.   850. 

1  Hagman  v.  Williams,  88  Cal.  lo  Mooney  v.  Peck,  49  N.  J.  L. 
146,  25  Pac.  1111;  Thorn  v.  232,  12  Atl.  177;  Cattanach  v.  In- 
Heugh,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  322,  5  Clark  gersoll,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  285,  5  Clark 
(Pa.)    169,   9    Leg.    Int.    (Pa.)    46.  (Pa.)  144,  11  Pa.  L.  J.   (Pa.)   345; 

2  Dickinson  College  v.  Church,  Horgan  v.  McKenzie,  17  N.  Y. 
1  Watts  &  S.   (Pa.)   462.  Supp.  174.     "Phillips,  in  his  work 

2a  Stevenson  v.  Woodward,  8  on  Mechanics'  Liens  (section 
Cal.  App.  754,  86  Pac.  990.  204),  states  the  rule  on  this  sub- 


259] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN, 


620 


could  be  usefully  applied  in  its  construction,  then  the  ma- 
terial man  is  not  bound  to  inquire  into  the  character  of  the 
materials  which  the  contractor  had  agreed  with  the  owner  of 
the  building  to  use  in  its  construction. ^^  Evidence  as  to  the 
reasonable  value  of  the  materials  furnished  is  incompetent 
where  the  same  is  fixed  by  contract/^  but  if  the  finding  should 
be  only  for  the  contract  price,  it  is  harmless  error  to  admit 
the  evidence. ^3  The  fact  that  a  certain  person  made  calcula- 
tions as  to  the  amount  of  work  done,  wull  not  authorize  the 
admission  of  such  estimates  by  a  witness  to  whom  they  were 
dictated. 1^  The  original  contract  is  generally  admissible,^^ 
but  if  it  is  admitted  to  be  correctly  set  out  in  the  petition, 


ject  as  follows:  'The  owner, 
when  the  contract  is  not  made 
immediately  by  himself  or  his 
duly  authorized  agent,  but  by  his 
contractor,  may  show  that  the 
price  agreed  to  be  paid  by  the 
contractor  was  beyond  the  fair 
market  value  at  the  time;  but 
if  there  is  no  evidence  to  show 
that  the  materials  furnished  by 
a  sub-contractor  are  worth  less 
than  the  price  agreed  on  between 
him  and  the  principal  contractor, 
he  is  entitled  to  a  lien  for  this 
agreed  price.  The  owner,  when 
sued  by  a  subcontractor,  would 
be  able  to  impeach  the  contract 
only  for  fraud  or  mistake.  The 
contract  in  either  case  is  admis- 
sible in  evidence.'  He  cites  in 
support  of  this  proposition:  Cat- 
tanach  v.  Ingersoll,  1  Phila.  (Pa.) 
28.5;  Hilliker  v.  Francisco,  65  Mo. 
598;  Miller  v.  Whitelaw,  28  Mo. 
App.  639."  Charles  v.  E.  F.  Hal- 
lack  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.,  32  Colo. 
283,   43    Pac.    548. 


11  Odd  Fellows'  Hall  v.  Masser, 
24  Pa.   St.   507,   64  Am.  Dec.   675. 

12  Murphy  v.  Fleetford,  30  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  487,  70   S.  W.  989. 

13  Reid  V.  Berry,  178  Mass.  260, 
59  N.  E.  760. 

14  Cook  V.  Gallatin  R.  Co.,  28 
Mont.  340,  72  Pac.  678.  A  con- 
tractor's lien  was  defended  on 
the  ground  that  in  doing  the 
plumbing  he  had  substituted  in- 
ferior material,  and  the  owner 
testified  that  he  had  been  com- 
pelled to  pay  out  a  considerable 
sum  for  repairs  thereto,  and  had 
suffered  much  damage  therefrom. 
The  contractor's  testimony  as  to 
what  would  be  the  proper  cost 
of  keeping  the  plumbing  in  repair 
was  admissible,  both  as  directly 
bearing  on  the  issues  involved 
and  to  impeach  the  owner. 
Schultze  V.  Goodstein,  82  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  316,  81  N.  Y.  Supp. 
946. 

15  Gattanach  v.  Ingersoll,  1 
Phila.  (Pa.)  285;  McDermott  v. 
Class,   104  Mo.   14,  15   S.   W.   995. 


621 


EVIDENCE — CONTRACT. 


[§259 


it  will  not  be  error  to  refuse  its  admission.^'^  Of  course, 
if  the  contract  is  in  writing,  parol  evidence  is  not  admissible  to 
vary  its  terms. ^"^  It  may  be  shown,  however,  by  parol  that 
the  character  of  the  building  was  changed  from  that  con- 
templated at  the  time  the  contract  was  made.^^  If  the  owner 
is  to  be  charged  by  merely  consenting  to  the  work  being  done, 
then  evidence  of  all  matters  tending  to  prove  his  knowledge 
of  the  erection  of  the  building  is  competent.^^  But  evidence 
that  a  person  was  employed  on  one  job  is  inadmissible  to  show 
that  he  was  employed  on  another  job.^^  Where,  under  the 
statutes,  the  contractor  acts  as  the  agent  of  the  owner,  evi- 
dence of  the  nature  of  the  contractor  and  subcontractor's 
contract  is  admissible,  even  though  the  owner  knew  nothing 
of  it.2i  On  the  question  whether  the  contract  is  entire  or 
separable,  receipts  given  for  money  during  delivery  of  the 
material  or  the  furnishing  of  labor  are  admissible.22 


16  Kankakee  Coal  Co.  v.  Crane 
Bros.  Mfg.  Co.,  28  111.  App.  371. 

17  Justice  V.  Myers,  68  Minn. 
481,   71  N.   W.   667. 

18  Brown  v.  Edward  P.  Allis 
Co.,  98  Wis.  120,  73  N.  W.  656. 

19  Althen  v.  Tarbox,  48  Minn. 
18,  50  N.  W.  1018,  31  Am.  St.  616; 
Kirschbon  v.  Bonzel,  67  Wis.  178, 
29  N.  W.  907. 

Husband  agent  of  wife. — Laws 
Minn.  1885,  ch.  46,  provides  for  a 
lien  for  labor  or  material  furnish- 
ed by  or  with  the  knowledge  and 
consent  of  a  married  woman, 
who  is  the  owner  of  the  property 
benefited  thereby,  upon  the  order 
of  her  husband,  and  that  such 
knowledge  and  consent  shall  be 
sufficient  to  establish  that  such 
husband  acted  therein  as  the 
agent  of  the  wife.  Where  a  hus- 
band contracted  to  have  the 
plumbing  done   in   a  house  being 


constructed  by  the  wife,  and 
owned  by  her,  it  was  error  to  ex- 
clude proof  that  the  wife  saw  and 
conversed  about  the  plumbing 
while  it  was  being  done.  Mc- 
Carthy V.  Caldwell,  43  Minn.  442, 
45  N.  W.  723.  It  is  competent  to 
ask  him  whether  he  sold  the  pro- 
perty for  his  wife  and  as  to  what 
he  did  with  the  purchase  money, 
and  as  to  who  employed  men  to 
do  certain  work  on  her  property. 
Saunders  v.  Tuscumbia  Roofing 
&  Plumbing  Co.,  148  Ala.  519,  41 
So.    982. 

20  Miller  v.  Barroll,  14  Md.  173. 

2iTreusch  v.  Shryock,  51  Md. 
162. 

22  Pratt  V.  Campbell,  24  Pa.  184. 
Evidence  that  the  contractor  had 
purchased  some  materials  of  an- 
other materialman  did  not  show 
that  plaintiff  had  not  carried  out 
his  contract.     San  Pedro  Lumber 


§260] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


622 


§  260.     Evidence — Book  accounts — Lien  claim — Pleadings. 

— Where  the  plaintiff's  lien  rights  depend  upon  whether 
there  is  something  due  the  contractor  from  the  owner  at 
the  time  it  is  sought  to  establish  the  lien,  then  the  condition 
of  accounts  between  owner  and  contractor  becomes  a  material 
one  and  the  evidence  relating  thereto  is  admissible. ^  Book 
accounts,  together  with  other  admitted  or  known  facts,^  are 
generally  admissible^  to  show  the  existence*  or  non-existence 
of  the  debt,^  as  well  as  the  application  of  payments  made.^ 
In  the  absence  of  evidence  showing  the  particular  one  of 
several  buildings  for  which  the  materials  sold  and  charged  in 
joint  account,  were  furnished,  the  account  is  not  admissible.''' 
Other  evidence  is  admissible  to  show  to  which  building  the 
material  was  applied.^  And  in  cases  where  the  account  shows 
joint  items  it  may  be  explained  for  what  purpose  the  account 
was  thus  made,  and  that  really  the  claim  is  against  a  certain 
one  only.^     The  contractor's  statement  to  a  subcontractor  as 


Co.   V.  West,   2   Cal.  App.  757,   86 
Pac.  993. 

1  Lind  V.  Braender,  15  Daly  (N. 
Y.)  370,  7  N.  Y.  Supp.  664;  Pars- 
ley V.  David,  106  N.  Car.  225,  10 
S.  E.  1028.  Waiver  of  claim  for 
damages.  Rhodes  v.  Jones,  26 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  568,  64  S.  W.  699. 
Certificate  of  person,  agreed  on 
as  to  amount  due.  Malone  v. 
Mayfield,  13  Tex.  Civ.  App.  54S, 
36  S.  W.  148. 

2  McCartney  v.  Buck,  8  Houst. 
(Del.)   34,  12  Atl.  717. 

3  Book  of  orig'iiial  entries. — The 
plaintiff's  book  of  original  entries 
is  competent  evidence  of  the  items 
and  the  amount  of  the  debt 
claimed,  and  he  may  show  by  the 
evidence  the  other  facts  which 
entitle  him  to  recover.  Noar  v. 
Gill,  111  Pa.  488,  4  Atl.  552. 


Letter  inadmissible. — A  letter 
from  the  architect  to  plaintiff, 
stating  that  the  latter  was  or- 
dered by  defendant  to  cease  work,' 
is  inadmissible  without  proof  that 
defendant  authorized  such  letter. 
Guggolz  V.  Callan,  25  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
762,  54  N.  Y.   Supp.  149. 

4  aicQuaide    v.    Stewart,    48    Pa. 
St.  198. 

5  Creasy  v.   Emanuel   Reformed 
Church,  1  Pa.  Super  Ct.  372. 

6  McQuaide   v.    Stewart,    48    Pa. 
St.  198. 

7  Brown  v.  Kolb,  43  W.  N.  C.  26, 
8  Pa.  Super  Ct.  413. 

8  Chambers    v.    Yarnall,    15    Pa. 
265. 

9  Trammell  v.  Hudmon,  86  Ala. 
472,  6  So.  4. 


623 


EVIDENCE — BOOK  ACCOUNTS — PLEADINGS. 


261 


to  why  he  charged  a  credit  to  another  account,  is 
inadmissible  against  other  lien  claimants,  it  being  hearsay 
as  to  them.^"  If  an  account  shows  a  charge  against  one 
person  and  another  is  sought  to  be  charged  on  the  ground 
that  the  materials  were  used  for  the  improvement  of  his 
premises,  a  note  given  by  the  one  charged  may  be  intro- 
duced as  showing  the  correctness  of  the  charge  and  to  show 
on  whose  credit  the  charge  was  made.^^  The  lien  statement 
made  and  filed  as  the  law  requires^-  is  admissible. ^•'^  However, 
if  the  correctness  of  the  claim  is  disputed,  then  this  fact  must 
be  shown  by  other  evidence.^'*  A  memorandum  on  the  back 
of  the  statement  itself  and  not  recorded  is  not  admissible. ^^ 
But  variances  may  be  explained, ^*^  and  inconsistencies  shown 
by  a  defendant. ^'^  As  a  general  rule,  the  pleadings  are  ad- 
missible as  evidence. ^^     But  they  are  not  conclusive,  and  unless 


kj  Green  Bay  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Thomas,  106  Iowa  420,  76  N.  W. 
749. 

11  Wright  V.  Hood,  49  Wis.  235, 
5  N.  W.  488. 

12  Jennings  v.  Neale,  52  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  ^82;  Greene  v.  Finnell, 
22  Wash.  186,  60  Pac.  144. 

13  New  Ebenezer  Assn.  v.  Gress 
Lumber  Co.,  89  Ga.  125,  14  S.  E. 
892;  Adams  v.  Shaffer,  132  Ind. 
331,  31  N.  E.  1108.  It  was  relev- 
ant to  an  issue  in  the  cause,  viz.; 
the  right  of  the  plaintiff  to  a  lien. 
The  plaintiff  had  filed  the  notice 
in  due  time,  and  in  proper  terms, 
and  the  record  was  evidence  tend- 
ing to  prove  it.  Merritt  v.  Pear- 
son, 58  Ind.  385. 

14  Weaver  v.  Sheeler,  118  Pa. 
634,   12  Atl.   558. 

i-'>  Lawson  v.  Coates,  56  Ga.  379. 
Memorandum  inadmissible  unless 
relevant.     Valley  Lumber  &  Mfg. 


Co.  V.  Nickerson,  13  Idaho  682,  93 
Pac.   24. 

1"  On  an  issue  as  to  the 
good  faith  of  a  contractor  in  stat- 
ing the  amount  due,  in  the  certifi- 
cate for  a  mechanic's  lien,  where 
he  testified  that  he  kept  no  ac- 
count of  the  time  a  subcontractor 
worked,  which  was  included 
as  one  of  the  items  on  ac- 
count of  his  time,  written  up  and 
given  the  contractor  by  the  sub- 
contractor, was  admissible.  Mon- 
aghan  v.  Goddard,  173  Mass.  468, 
53   N.   E.   895. 

1"  A  mechanic's  lien,  signed  and 
sworn  to  by  plaintiff,  which  con- 
tains declarations  inconsistent 
with  his  claim,  is  admissible,  in 
behalf  of  defendant  in  an  action 
on  such  claim.  Guggolz  v.  Callan, 
25  Misc.  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  762,  54  N. 
Y.  Supp.  149. 

IS  Tracy  v.  Rogers,  69  111.  662; 
Garrett  v.   Stevenson,   8   111.   261; 


261] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


624 


the   parties  had   been  properly   notified   by   personal   service, 
judgment  can  not  be  taken  without  other  evidence. 

§  261.  Evidence — Weight  and  sufficiency. — Reviewing 
courts  do  not  set  aside  a  finding  as  being  against  the  weight 
of  the  evidence,  unless  it  is  manifestly  so,  but  they  will  not 
hesitate  to  do  so  where  there  is  no  evidence  to  support  the 
claim  for  a  lien.^  If,  however,  the  evidence  is  merely  con- 
flicting the  verdict  of  the  jury  or  decision  of  the  nisi  prius 
court  will  be  allowed  to  stand.^  Where  the  plaintiff  shows  that 
the  money  was  due  and  payable,^  and  that  he  has  delivered 
the  materials  at  the  building,'*  and  that  he  filed  his  statement 
within  the  required  statutory  time,^  and  performed  his  con- 


Kimball  v.  Cook,  6  111.  423;  Van 
Billiard's  Adm'rs.  v.  Nace,  1  Grant 
Cas.  (Pa.)  233. 

1  Georgia.  —  Foote  v.  Kendall, 
113  Ga.  946,  39  S.  E.  303. 

Illinois. — Schmelzer  v.  Chicago 
Ave.  Sash  &  Door  Mfg.  Co.,  85  111. 
App.  596. 

Kentucky. — Finch  v.  Redding, 
43  Ky.  87. 

Michigan. — Brennan  v.  Miller, 
97  Mich.   182,  56  N.  W.   354. 

Minnesota — McDonald  v.  Ryan, 
39  Minn.  341,  40  N.  W.  158. 

Missouri. — Boland  v.  Webster, 
126  Mo.  App.  591,  105  S.  W.  34. 

Washington. — Heald  v.  Hodder, 
5  Wash.  St.  677,  32  Pac.  728.  Did 
not  show  contract  was  pei'- 
formed.  Tanzley  v.  Lampkin,  113 
Ga.  1007,  39  S.  E.  473.  Failure  to 
show  substantial  compliance  with 
contract.  Smith  v.  Ruggiero,  173 
N.  Y.  614,  66  N.  E.  1116.  A 
verified  account  filed  to  secure  a 
mechanic's  lien  for  materials  fur- 
nished is  no  evidence  of  the  de- 
livery of  the  material.     Searle  & 


Chapin  Lumber  Co.  v.  Jones 
(Neb.),  114  N.  W.  783.  See  Dec. 
&  Am.  Dig.  tit  Mechanics'  Liens 
§  281. 

2  McClain  v.  Hutton,  131  Cal. 
132,  63  Pac.  182;  Jacoby  v.  Scou- 
gale,  26  111.  App.  46. 

3  Doughty  V.  Devlin,  1  E.  D. 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  625. 

4  Allen  V.  Elwert,  29  Ore.  428, 
44  Pac.  823,  48  Pac.  54.  The  evi- 
dence showed  that  the  manufac- 
turer had  shipped  the  material  to 
the  contractor,  on  behalf  of  the 
local  dealer,  and  that  similar  ma- 
terial went  into  the  house.  It 
was  not  contended  that  it  was 
bought  elsewhere.  It  was  suffici- 
ent to  establish  the  local  dealer's 
lien  for  such  material.  Frudden 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Kinnan,  117  Iowa, 
93,  90  N.  W.  515;  Darlington  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Harris,  107  Mo.  App. 
148,  80  S.  W.  688;  Noyes  v.  Smith 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  77  S.  W.  649. 

■5  McLean  v.  Wiley,  176  Mass. 
233,  57  N.  E.  347;  Western  Iron 
Works  V.  Montana  Pulp  &  Paper 


625 


EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY. 


[§261 


tract,*'  the  findings  of  the  lower  court  in  his  favor  will  not  ordinar- 
ily be  disturbed^  The  mere  preponderance  of  the  evidence  is  suffi- 
cient.^ As  a  general  rule,  undenied  averments  of  the  petition 
are  sufficient  to  sustain  a  finding  for  plaintiff.^  But  if  im- 
peached by  a  cross-claimant,  the  cross-claimant  will  be  en- 
titled to  a  decree  so  far  as  the  averments  of  his  cross-petition 
show  him  entitled. i°  Evidence  that  the  person  sought  to  be 
charged   is   in   possession   claiming  ownership   of  the   lots   in 


Co.,  30  Mont.  550,  77  Pac.  413; 
Bankers'  Building  &  Loan  Assn. 
V.  Williams   (Neb.),  96  N.  W.  655. 

6  Schultze  V.  Goodstein,  82  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  316,  81  N.  Y.  Supp. 
946;  Smith  v.  Ruggiero,  52  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  382,  65  N.  Y.  Supp. 
89.  Cline  v.  Shell,  43  Ore.  372,  73 
Pac.  12.  Subcontractor  did  not 
perform  contract.  MacKnight 
Flintic  Stone  Co.  v.  City  of  New 
York,  176  N.  Y.  586,  68  N.  E.  1119, 
78  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  641,  79  N.  Y. 
Supp.  521.  In  the  absence  of  evi- 
dence of  a  contract  between  the 
owner  of  land  and  the  alleged  ori- 
ginal contractor,  one  furnishing 
material  to  such  contractor  could 
not  enforce  a  lien  on  the  prem- 
ises. Jose  V.  Hoyt,  106  Mo.  App. 
594,  81  S.  W.  468.  Evidence  suffi- 
cient to  sustain  a  finding  of  dam- 
ages for  poor  material  and  work- 
manship in  excess  of  the  amount 
due  on  the  contract.  Fletcher  v. 
Sandusky,  26  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1232, 
S3  S.  W.  644. 

7  Haviland  v.  Pratt,  9  Leg.  Int. 
(Pa.)    98. 

8  An  instruction,  in  an  action 
to  foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien  on 
a  homestead  provided  by  a  con- 
tract   purporting    to    be    acknow- 


ledged by  husband  and  wife,  but 
which  the  answer  denied  was 
acknowledged  by  the  wife,  that 
the  evidence  establishing  such  de- 
fense must  be  clear  and  convinc- 
ing, and  that  it  must  be  clearly 
shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
jury  that  she  did  not  acknowledge 
it,  is  erroneous,  it  being  necessary 
for  defendants  to  establish  the 
fact  by  a  preponderance  of  evi- 
dence only.  Mosen  v.  R.  B.  Spen- 
cer &  Bro.,  82  S.  W.  1054  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.) 

9  Carey-Lombard  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Carrier,  92  111.  App.  269;  Hannah 
&  Lay  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Hartzell, 
125  Mich.  177,  84  N.  W.  52,  7  Det. 
Leg.  N.  470. 

10  Evidence  insufficient  to  estab- 
lish fact  indicated.  —  That  ma- 
terials were  furnished  for  certain 
building  but  must  show  they  were 
used.  Missoula  INIercantile  Co.  v. 
O'Donnell,  24  Mont.  65,  60  Pac. 
594.  That  notice  was  properly 
given.  Hill.  v.  Kaufman,  98  Md. 
247,  56  Atl.  783. 

Evidence  sufficient  to  'sIiotv  fact 
indicated. — That  mortgagee  knew 
of  arrangement  to  take  notes,  etc. 
Kendall  v.  Fadder,  199  111.  294,  65 
N.    E.    318.      To    show   one   entire 


40 


261] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


626 


the  petition  described. ^^  or  that  he  occupied  the  house  as  a 
residence, ^2  or  that  the  property  is  assessed  against  him  for 
taxation/^  or  that  there  are  no  other  lots  except  those  in 
the  complaint  described  in  a  certain  town  belonging  to  him/'* 
is  generally  held  sufficient  to  justify  a  decree  against  the 
property. ^^      However,   there    must   be   sufficient   evidence   to 


contract.  Hill  v.  Kaufman,  98 
Md.  247,  56  Atl.  783.  To  show 
value  of  property  above  home- 
stead exemptions.  McAllister  v. 
Des  Rochers,  132  Mich.  381,  93  N. 
W.  887,  9  Det.  Leg.  N.  645.  To 
show  delivery  of  materials  at  cer- 
tain date.  Lamb  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Benson,  90  Minn.  403,  97  N.  W. 
143.  Searle  &  Chapin  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Jones  (Neb.),  114  N.  W.  783. 
To  show  that  the  party  was  en- 
titled to  a  lien  on  the  fee.  Win- 
slow  Bros.  Co.  V.  McCully  Stone 
Mason  Co.,  169  Mo.  236,  69  S.  W. 
304.  On  cross-petition  to  fore- 
close a  mechanic's  lien,  the  veri- 
fied account  of  items,  with  proof 
of  amount  of  claim,  is  not  suffici- 
ent to  sustain  a  decree.  Urlau  v. 
Ruhe,  63  Neb.  883,  89  N.  W.  427. 
To  show  certain  amount  remained 
undone  when  abondoned.  Miller 
V.  Norcross,  92  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.) 
352,  87  N.  Y.  Supp.  56.  To  show 
agent's  authority;  to  show  no 
agreement  to  cancel  lien.  Hine 
V.  Vanderbeek,  56  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)  621,  67  N.  Y.  Supp.  801,  170 
N.  Y.  580,  63  N.  E.  1118;  Leh- 
retter  v.  Koffman,  1  E.  D.  Smith 
(N.  Y.)  664,  Code  R.  (N.  Y.)  284. 
To  show  separate  contracts. 
Smith  V.  Wilcox,  44  Ore.  323,  74 
Pac.  708.  To  show  purchase  of  en- 
tire bill  of  goods.     Cline  v.  Shell, 


43  Ore.  372,  73  Pac.  12.  To  show 
delivery  of  material  at  certain 
date.  Forest  Grove  Door  &  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  McPherson,  31  Ore.  586, 

46  Pa.  884.  To  show  kind  of  build- 
ing, etc.,  whether  new  or  altera- 
tion. Keim  v.  ^McRoberts,  18  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  167.  To  show  forcible 
ejection  of  plaintiff.  Cochran  v. 
Yoho,  34  Wash.  238,  75  Pac.  815. 
To  show  that  action  is  based  in 
entire  contract.  Huetter  v.  Red- 
head, 31  Wash.  320,  71  Pac.  1016. 
To  show  material  was  sold  to  be 
used  in  certain  buildings.  Laev 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Auer,  123  Wis.  178, 
101  N.  W.  425.  To  show  building 
was  commenced  according  to  cer- 
tain plans.  Fitzgerald  v.  Walsh, 
107  Wis.  92,  82  N.  W.  717.  To 
submit  matter  to  jury.  Johnson 
V.  Iron  Belt  Min.  Co.,  78  Wis.  159, 

47  N.  W.  363. 

11  Chisholm  v.  Williams,  128  111. 
115,  21  N.  E.  215;  Cole  v.  Barron, 
8  Mo.  App.  509;  Foley  v.  Coon, 
41  Colo.  432,  93  Pac.  13. 

12  Lewis  V.  Saylors,  73  Iowa 
504,  35  N.  W.  601. 

13  Rohan  Bros.  Boiler  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  St.  Louis  Malleable  Iron  Co.,  34 
Mo.  App.  157. 

!■*  Lombard  v.  Johnson,  76  111. 
599. 

15  Santa  Cruz  Rock  Pav.  Co.  v. 
Lyons  (Cal.),  43  Pac.  599. 


627 


EVIDENCE WEIGHT. 


[§261 


show  that  the  work  or  materials  were  furnished  for  the  prop- 
erty sought  to  be  charged  in  the  lien.^*^  If  there  is  no  such 
evidence,  then  the  action  must  fail.^'^  And  if  a  lien  itself  de- 
pends upon  the  time  when  the  work  was  commenced,  this 
fact  must  be  shown, ^^  but  a  trivial  variance  between  the  aver- 
ments in  the  complaint  and  proof  in  this  particular  will  not 
invalidate  the  lien.^^ 


16  Pease  v.  Thompson,  67  Iowa 
70,  24  N.  W.  598.  Articles  not 
used  and  not  fit,  not  included. 
Battle  Creek  Lumber  Co.  v.  Po- 
land, 150  Mich.  690,  114  N.  W.  671, 
14  Det.  Leg.  N.  866. 

17  Pollock  V.  Morrison,  177 
Mass.  412,  59  N.  E.  80.  The  com- 
plaint described  the  property 
by  metes  and  bounds.  The 
notice  of  lien  introduced  as 
evidence  described  it  by  re- 
ferring to  the  date  and  record 
of  a  certain  deed  of  the  premises. 
The  answer  admitted  that  the 
house  was  built  on  the  land  des- 
cribed in  the  complaint,  but  no 
evidence  was  introduced  to  show 
that  the  land  described  in  the  lien 
was  the  same  as  that  described  in 
the  complaint.  There  was  no 
evidence  on  which  to  establish  a 
lien  on  the  land  in  question. 
Morehouse  v.  Collins,  23  Ore.  138, 
31   Pac.  295. 

18  Leftwich  Lumber  Co.  v.  Flor- 
ence Mut.  Bldg.  Loan  &  Savings 
Assn.,  104  Ala.  584,  18  So.  48. 

10  Schingler  v.  Green,  149  Cal. 
752,  87  Pac.  626.  Where  the  mem- 
orandum of  contract  was  filed  at 
10: 30  o'clock  a.  m.,  and  it  appeared 
that  the  work  was  commenced 
no  earlier  than  8  or  8:30  a.  m. 
of    the    same    day,     the     evidence 


thereof  being  doubtful,  and  such 
work  being  of  a  trivial  nature,  a 
finding  that  the  work  commenced 
before  said  filing,  will  not  be  sus- 
tained. Reed  v.  Norton,  90  Cal. 
590,  26  Pac.  767,  27  Pac.  426. 
Sufficient  to  sustain  case.  Union 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Simon  150  Cal.  751, 
89  Pac.  1077;  Stearns-Roger  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Aztec  Gk»ld  Min.  &c.,  Co.  (N. 
Mex.),  93  Pac.  706;  Maneely  v. 
New  York,  119  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)  376,  105  N.  Y.  Supp.  976; 
Gier  v.  Daiber,  148  Mich. 
190,  111  N.  W.  773;  14  Det. 
Leg.  N.  183;  Salter  v.  Goldberg, 
(Ala.),  43  So.  571;  Guion  v.  Ryck- 
man,  77  Neb.  833,  110  N.  W.  759; 
Easthampton  Lumber  &  Coal  Co. 
V.  Worthington,  186  N.  Y.  407,  79  N. 
E.  323;  Chicago  Lumber,  &c.,  Co. 
V.  Garmer,  132  Iowa  282,  109  N. 
W.  780;  Libbey  v.  Tidden,  192 
Mass.  175,  78  N.  E.  313;  McLaugh- 
lin v.  Sayle,  190  Mass.  583,  77  N. 
E.  639;  Prince  v.  Neal-Millard  Co., 
124  Ga.  884,  53  S.  W.  761;  Hahn  v. 
Bonacum,  76  Neb.  837,  107  N.  W. 
1001.  Insufficient  to  sustain  case. 
Knudson-Jacob  Co.  v.  Brandt,  44 
Wash.  68,  87  Pac.  43;  Drall  v. 
Gordon,  51  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  618,  101 
N.  Y.  Supp.  171;  Central  Planing 
Mill  &  Lumber  Co.  v.  Betz,  29  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  252,  92  S.  W.  591;  Miller  v. 


262] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


628 


§  262.  Evidence — Completion  of  work — Consent  of  Owner — 
Indebtedness. — Of  course,  if  the  lien  depends  for  its  efficacy 
upon  the  time  of  the  completion  of  the  work,  this  fact  must 
be  shown,  and  it  is  held  that  the  structure  is  completed  if  it 
is  occupied  by  the  owner.^  But  a  finding  that  it  is  completed 
is  not  justified  where  completion  is  interfered  wath  by  reason 
of  a  dispute  between  the  owner  and  contractor,^  or  some 
condition  remains  to  be  performed.^  Generally  all  evidence 
which  goes  to  establish  the  fact  of  such  completion  is  ad- 
missible. If  a  mistake  is  made  as  to  the  date,  this  may 
be  explained  and  the  true  date  shown. ^  The  agreement  or 
consent  of  the  owner  to  the  terms  of  the  contract  cannot  be 
implied^ ;  it  must  be  proved.^  Plaintiff  may  be  held,  however, 
if  there  is  suf^cient  evidence  to  show  an  agency,'^  or  raise  an 
estoppel.^      Proof    of   knowledge,    however,    is    not    proof    of 


Isear,  99  N.  Y.  Supp.  869;  Tom- 
masi  V.  Bolger,  114  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)  838,  100  N.  Y.  Supp.  367. 

1  Joost  V.  Sullivan,  111  Cal.  286, 
43  Pac.  896. 

2  Marble  Lime  Co.  v.  Lordsburg 
Hotel  Co.,  96  Cal.  332,  31  Pac.  164. 

3  Washburn  v.  Kahler,  97  Cal. 
58,  31  Pac.  741. 

4  Harrisburg  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Washburn,  29  Ore.  150,  44  Pac. 
390. 

5  Cowen  V.  Paddock,  137  N.  Y. 
188,  33  N.  E.  154.  Plaintiff  testi- 
fied that  defendant  employed  him, 
but  he  made  no  definite  statement 
of  the  manner  of  his  employment, 
and  admitted  that  he  came  to  take 
charge  of  the  work  under  con- 
tract with  defendant's  architect  to 
superintend  their  buildings,  in- 
cluding defendant's.  Defendant 
denied  having  employed  him,  and 
was    corroborated    by    the    archi- 


tects, who  testified  that  the  em- 
ployment was  by  them,  that  they 
were  to  pay  him,  and  defendant 
only  to  make  up  to  them  a  certain 
amount  of  his  wages.  A  judg- 
ment for  plaintiff  was  unwar- 
ranted. Cadwell  v.  Brackett,  2 
Wash.  321,  26  Pac.  219. 

«  Morris  v.  Willits,  29  Neb.  569, 
45  N.  W.  784.  Sufficient.  Dennis 
V.  Walsh,  16  N.  Y.  Supp.  257. 

">  Cattell  V.  Ferguson,  3  Wash. 
541,  28  Pac.  750. 

8  Williams  v.  Vanderbilt,  40  111. 
App.  298,  affirmed,  145  111.  238,  30 
N.  E.  458,  34  N.  E.  476;  Carthage 
Marble  &  White  Line  Co.  v.  Bau- 
man,  44  Mo.  App.  386;  Farmilo  v. 
Stiles,  52  Hun  (N.  Y.)  450,  5  N. 
Y.  Supp.  579.  Must  not  appear  as 
made  up  afterwards  to  suit  cir- 
cumstances. Rand  v.  Parker,  73 
Iowa,  396,  35  N.  W.  493.  Estop- 
pel to  deny  consent,  see  §§  37,  40. 


629  EVIDENCE INDEBTEDNESS.  [§262 

consent.^  And  it  may  be  shown  that  what  purports  to  be  a 
written  contract,  is  only  a  skeleton  memorandum  of  the  con- 
tract which  was  verbally  made.^^  The  dates  of  the  items  of 
the  account  are  admissible  to  show  that  plaintiff  is  entitled 
to  a  lien.  And  the  date  of  its  assignment  is  admissible  as 
bearing  on  the  question  of  authority  of  the  defendant's  agent 
to  bind  him  by  the  purchase  of  the  account. ^^  If  the  plain- 
tiff wilfully  claims  on  an  erroneous  statement,  evidence  of 
this  fact  is  admissible  and  if  established  he  will  fail  in  his  ac- 
tion.^2  But  this  does  not  mean  that  he  will  lose  his  lien 
by  reason  of  making  an  excessive  claim.  If  the  particular 
part  is  not  pointed  out  and  objected  to  on  the  trial  the  verdict 
will  not  be  set  aside  on  appeal. ^^  If  the  building  contract 
stipulates  that  the  architect's  certificate  shall  be  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  right  to  a  lien,  this  is  admissible  and  no  further 
evidence  is  required  to  render  a  judgment. ^^  Where  the  notice 
in  evidence  states  the  amount  due,  and  the  contract  price, 
this  will  be  sufficient,  if  not  denied,  to  show  the  value  of  the 
materials  furnished. ^^  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  sale  of 
materials  should  be  charged  in  a  book ;  any  satisfactory  evi- 
dence that  they  were  actually  furnished  is  admissible. ^^  But 
this  fact  cannot  be  inferred,  it  must  be  proven.^'^  Under  the 
Ohio  statutes,  the  mere  fact  that  the  head  contractor  does 
not  dispute  the  claim  of  the  subcontractor  does  not  make 
claim  of  the  subcontractor  prima  facie  correct. ^^    The  contract 

9  Smith  V.  Gill,  37  Minn.  4.55,  35  i-i  Snaith  v.  Smith,  5  Misc.    (N. 

N.  W.  178.  Y.)   593,  25  N.  Y.  Supp.  513. 

if>  Land      Mortgage      Bank      v.  i5  Wheeler    v.    Ralph,    4    Wash. 

Quanah  Hotel  Co.,  89  Tex.  332,  32  617,  30  Pac.  709. 

S.  W.  573.  i«  Wolf  V.  Batchelder,  56  Pa.  St. 

iiMahoney  v.   Butte   Hardware  87. 

Co.,   19  Mont.   377,  48   Pac.  545.  17  Henry    &   Coatsworth    Co.    v. 

12  Walls  V.  Ducharme,  162  Mass.  McCurdy,   36   Neb.    863,   55   N.   W, 
432,  38  N.  E.  1114.  261;  Cassidy  v.  Fontham,  14  N.  Y. 

13  Hall  V.  St.  Louis  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Supp.  151. 

Mo.  App.  33.  18  Bender  v.  Stettinius,  10  Ohio 

Dec.  186,  19  W.  L.  Bull.  163. 


§  263]  ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN.  630 

between  the  owner  and  the  contractor  is  admissible  to  show 
the  value  of  the  materials. ^^  Where  the  statute  requires  a 
notice  to  be  given,  this  notice  is  admissible,  but  the  evidence 
must  show  that  the  notice  given  corresponds  with  the  case 
as  made  out  in  the  pleadings.-'^  The  statement  filed  is  only- 
evidence  of  its  filing  and  the  sufficiency  of  its  contents  for  filing.^i 

§  263,  Miscellaneous  matters  before  trial. — In  a  previous 
section,^  attention  was  called  to  the  fact  that  the  proceeding 
to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien  is  usually  governed  by  equitable 
principles  and  that  unless  some  of  the  grounds  for  which  an 
injunction  would  ordinarily  be  granted  in  such  courts  are 
shown  to  exist  it  will  not  be  allowed  in  an  action  on  a  me- 
chanic's lien.  Where,  however,  some  particular  injury  may 
occur  the  injunction  will  usually  be  granted.-  In  the  absence 
of  statute,  it  is  held  that  the  plaintifif  is  not  entitled  to  have 
a  receiver  for  the  property  pendente  lite.^  But  many  of  the 
states  provide  for  the  appointment  of  a  receiver,  and  it  is 
believed  that  where  a  proper  case  is  presented  to  a  court  of 
equity  a  receiver  w'ill  usually  be  appointed,  though  the  stat- 
ute does  not  expressly  so  authorize.^  Moneys  in  the  hands 
of  a  receiver  is  simply  money  in  the  hands  of  the  court  and 
subject  to   its  orders.-^      If   the   court   has  jurisdiction  of  the 

19  Cattanach     v.      Ingersoll,      5  i  See   §  201. 

Clarke  144,  1  Phila.   (Pa.)   285.  2  Chamberlin    v.    McCarthy,    59 

20  Reed  V.  Norton,  90  Cal.  590,  Hun  (N.  Y.)  158,  13  N.  Y.  Supp. 
26  Pac.   767.  217;  Webb  v.  Van  Zandt,  16  Abb. 

21  lowju— Lewis    V.    Saviors.    73  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  214.     See  §  201. 
Iowa,  504,  35  N.  W.  601.  ^  Stone  v.  Tyler,  173  111.  147,  50 

Nebraska. — Hassett  v.  Curtis,  20  N.   E.    688;    Meyer  v.    Seebald,   11 

Neb.  162,  29  N.  W.  295.  Abb.    Pr.    (N.   Y.)    326.      See   Dec. 

]Vew  York. — Hunter  v.   Walker,  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 

128  N.  Y.   668,  29  N.  E.  145,  1030.  §  283. 

Penii'sylTania. — Norris'      Appeal  ^  Webb   v.   Van   Zandt,   16   Abb. 

30   Pa.   St.   122.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   314. 

Washington. — Fairhaven      Land  5  Andrews  &  Hitchcock  Iron  Co. 

Co.  V.  Jorden,  5  Wash.  729,  32  Pac.  v.  Smead  Heating  &  Ventilating 
729. 


631 


MATTERS  BEFORE  TRIAL. 


[§264 


subject  matter  and  some  one  of  the  defendants,  the  action 
should  not  be  dismissed  without  a  hearing.*^ 

§  264.      Miscellaneous     matters     before    trial — Reference. — 

Whether  matters  to  be  presented  in  the  trial  should  be  re- 
ferred to  a  master  for  report  or  decision  depends  on  the 
procedure  of  the  particular  state.  The  action  on  a  mechanic's 
lien  is  generally  regarded  as  of  such  character  that  it  may 
be  referred  in  common  with  other  cases.'''  One  ground  for 
reference  is  that  the  issue  will  involve  the  examination  of  a 
long  account.*  A  reference  is  generally  granted  where  the 
question  involved  is  a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fact.^  Under 
a  Massachusetts  statute,  the  auditor  has  authority  to  de- 
termine whether  the  petition  or  certificate  is  seasonably  filed 
and  matters  of  like  character.^o  And  where  a  matter  is  re- 
ferred to  the  master  to  ascertain  claims  and  report  on  liens 
and  their  priorities,  it  is  clearly  contemplated  that  the  master 


Co.,  7   Ohio  N.   P.   439,  5   Ohio   S. 
&  C.  P.  Dec.  292. 

6  Lowber  v.  Childs,  2  B.  D. 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  577,  1  Abb.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  415;  Bartlett  v.  Clough,  94 
Wis.  196,  68  N.  W.  875. 
Personal  judgment.  Snaith  v. 
Smith,  7  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  37,  27  N. 
Y.  Supp.  379.  After  having  plead- 
ed. In  re  Lien  on  Broadway,  15 
Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  335.  While  pend- 
ing on  reference.  McGuckin  v. 
Coulter,  33  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  324, 
10  Abb.  Prac.   (N.  Y.)    128. 

7  Rail  V.  McCrary,  45  Mo.  App. 
365;  Schacttler  v.  Gardiner,  41 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  243.  Notice  to 
take  testimony  before.  Fergus  v. 
Chicago  Sash  &  Door  Co.,  64  111. 
App.  364. 


8  Tooker  v.  Rinaldo,  2  Abb.  N. 
Cas.  (N.  Y.)  334. 

9  Scott  V.  Roberts,  21  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  491,  7  Pa.  Dist.  606;  Menner  v. 
Nichols  (Pa.)  ,8  Atl.  647;  Beegle 
V.  ^IcGarry,  1  Lack.  Leg.  N. 
(Pa.)  131;  New  York  Metal  Ceil- 
ing Co.  V.  Kiernan,  73  N.  J.  L. 
763,  65  Atl.  444.  Under  the  me- 
chanic's lien  law,  the  question 
whether  when  an  old  building  is 
renewed  by  considerable  repairs 
it  is  "an  erection  or  construction," 
is  a  mixed  question  of  law  and 
fact,  and  is  properly  referred  to  a 
commissioner  competent  to  pass 
upon  both  law  and  fact.  Yohe's 
Appeal,  55  Pa.  St.   121. 

10  Cofbett  V.  Greenlaw,  117 
Mass.  167. 


§  265]  ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN.  632 

should  hear  proof  of  claims,  and  a  failure  to  do  so  will  be 
error. i"^ 

§  265.  Trial. — Questions  arising  in  reference  to  the  pro- 
cedure in  the  trial  of  the  case  are  always  regulated  by  the  law 
of  the  forum  wherein  the  trial  is  had/  and  in  a  general  way 
it  may  be  said  that  unless  the  statute  makes  some  special 
exception  thereto,  the  mode  of  trial  upon  the  issues  raised  in 
the  enforcement  of  a  mechanic's  lien  are  the  same  as  those 
relating  to  like  questions  arising  in  trials  generally.  If  the 
action  is  treated  as  a  common  law  action,  or  the  statute 
specifically  so  provides,  the  questions  of  fact  are  tried  by  a 
jury.  Where  the  proceeding  is  in  the  nature  of  an  equitable 
suit  or  a  chancery  action  all  questions,  both  law  and  fact, 
are  submitted  to  the  judge  unless  the  judge  should  make  up 
an  issue  and  refer  it  to  a  jury  or  should  refer  same  matter  to 
a  master. 2  The  question  at  the  outset  is  to  determine  whether, 
under  the  law  of  the  forum  in  which  the  action  is  pending, 
the  proceeding  is  as  a  common  law  or  an  equitable  action.^ 

11  Carl  V.  Crosse,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  verdict   being   found   there    as   to 

1586,  65  S.  W.  604.    A  trial  on  the  material   facts   submitted   for   the 

main  issue  should  be  had  before  settlement  of  a  jury,  the  court  in 

the  court  before   a   reference  for  the  rendition  of  its  judgment,  may 

examination    of    a    long    account.  not  disregard  such  finding.     If,  in 

O'Brien    v.    New    York    Butchers'  the  estimation  of  the  court,  it  is 

Dressed  Meat  Co.,  54  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  wrong    either    as    to    law    or   evi- 

297,  105  N.  Y.  Supp.  950.  dence,  the  court  can  avoid  it  only 

1  Kelsey  v.  Rourke,  50  How.  Pr.  by  setting  it  aside,  and  granting 
(N.  Y.)    315.  a  new  trial,  or  by  arresting  the 

2  See  §  264.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  judgment.  The  refusal  to  do  so. 
Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens,  §  286.  is,  in  this  state,  assignable  for  er- 

3  "In  courts  of  law,  the  agency  ror  by  statutory  enactment.  But 
of  juries  is  indispensable.  Their  in  the  machinery  of  courts  of 
province  is  to  determine  the  facts  equity,  no  such  agency  is  neces- 
of  the  case;  that  of  the  court,  to  sary.  This  results  from  the  con- 
settle  the  law  arising  on  such  stitution  of  such  courts,  and  the 
facts.  Hence  the  right  of  trial  by  peculiar  character  of  its  jurisdic- 
jury  in  such  courts  is  secured  by  tion.  Every  question  made  before 
constitutional     guaranty,     and     a  it  is  supposed  to  be  addresed  to 


633 


TRIAL. 


[§265 


Where  there  is  an  issue  of  fact  involved,^  the  court  can- 
not issue  a  decree  without  hearing  testimony  even  though  the 
defendant  should  not  contest  the  case.^  Where  the  allegations 
of  the  answer  merely  affect  the  validity  of  the  lien  and  there 
is  no  affirmative  relief  to  be  had,  it  has  been  held  that  the  case 
may  be  dismissed  upon  the  plaintiff's  application.^  And  so, 
where  the  answer  does  not  set  up  a  sufficient  defense,  a  de- 
cree may  be  rendered  upon  the  pleadings  of  plaintiff^  But 
if  there  is  an  answer  its  efficiency  must  first  be  tested  by 
proper  procedure.^  If  the  answers  should  be  ineffective,  upon 
such    procedure,    an    amendment    of    course    will    be    allowed 


the  conscience  of  the  chancellor, 
and  the  law  and  facts  involved  in 
any  such  question  must  neces- 
sarily be  determined  by  him; 
therefore,  when  in  complicated 
cases  of  account  or  fraud,  the  aid 
of  a  jury  is  invoked  by  the  Chan- 
cellor, it  is  only  to  advise  his 
conscience,  and  the  verdict  being 
rendered,  is  not  conclusive  upon 
him,  nor  necessarily  to  govern  in 
the  rendition  of  his  decree.  Its 
office  is  not  to  settle  the  facts, 
but  to  aid  him  in  their  ascertain- 
ment that  he  may  settle  them. 
Then,  although  the  chancellor  un- 
doubtedly may  set  aside  a  verdict, 
and  order  another  trial  by  a  jury, 
yet  this  should  be  of  his  own  mere 
motion  the  better  to  satisfy  him 
as  to  the  matters  of  fact  in  issue, 
and  not  as  a  matter  of  right,  on 
the  motion  of  either  party.  But 
the  chancellor  rejecting  the  ver- 
dict, so  far  as  inconsistent  with 
the  issues  or  incompatible  with  the 
testimony,  may  go  on  to  dispose 
of  the  case,  as  equity  and  justice 
may      demand,      without      either 


granting  a  new  trial  or  arresting 
the  judgment,  as  in  a  court  of 
law  in  such  cases  might  be  neces- 
sary. Consequently,  his  refusal  to 
do  so  is  not  assignable  for  error. 
Garrett  v.  Stevenson,  8  111.  261, 
269.  Nature  of  remedy.  See  §§ 
196,  197. 

4  Questions  of  law  and  fact.  See 
§  267. 

5  The  defendant's  attorney  hav- 
ing refused  to  represent  him  any 
longer  on  account  of  his  fees  not 
being  paid,  and  the  defendant 
himself  not  being  present,  the 
plaintiff  was  not  entitled  to  judg- 
ment without  going  on  and  mak- 
ing out  a  prima  facie  case.  Mc- 
Connell  v.  Bryant,  38  Ga.  639.  As 
to  what  is  proper  testimony,  see 
§§256-262. 

c>  Althen  v.  Tarbox,  48  Minn. 
1,  50  N.  W.  828. 

7  Hill  V.  Meyer,  47  Mo.  585; 
Kenney  v.  Monahan,  169  N.  Y.  591, 
62  N.  E.  1096. 

8  Wilkinson  v.  Brice,  148  Pa. 
153,  23  Atl.  982,  30  W.  N.  Cas.  30. 


§  265]  ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN.  634 

where  the  ends  of  justice  will  be  subserved  thereby.^  An 
action  should  not  be  dismissed  if  it  is  shown  that  there  is  any 
amount  due  the  plaintiff.^*^  The  matter  as  to  foreclosure  of 
a  lien  may  be  dismissed  and  personal  judgment  rendered  if 
the  pleadings  and  facts  so  authorize.  If  the  court  has  properly 
acquired  jurisdiction,  then  the  rights  of  all  parties  will  be 
protected  as  far  as  possible. ^^  Unless  the  statute  so  requires 
a  special  notice  of  trial  is  not  necessary.  When  a  person  is 
properly  served  with  process.^-  he  is  in  court  and  is  bound  to 
take  notice  of  the  orders  made  by  the  court  as  to  time  of  trial. 
And  where  the  statute  determines  the  place  of  the  trial,  this  being 
a  matter  of  law,  he  is  bound  to  take  notice  of  the  same.^^  If 
the  case,  however,  is  once  heard,  it  will  be  reversible  error 
to  re-open  it  without  notice  to  all  interested  parties,  and  the 
same  will  be  true,  if  without  fault  of  the  party,  the  case 
had  been  heard  in  his  absence. i**  The  matter  of  the  time  of 
trial  is  one  that  rests  largely  in  the  discretion  of  the  trial 
judge,  but  it  will  be  error  to  force  a  person  into  trial  before 
time  for  pleading  has  expired  or  the  time  set  for  trial  by  the 
code. ^5  Though  the  usual  procedure  is  for  plaintiff  to  intro- 
duce his  evidence  showing  his  cause  of  action  which  is  to 
be  followed  in  proper  order  by  evidence,  in  rebuttal,  yet  the 
time  and  order  of  introduction  of  evidence  largely  rest  in  the 

9  Sherry  v.  Madler,  123  Wis.  621,      has   power   to   make  such  orders, 
101  N.  W.  1095.  and  to  control  its  processes  so  as 

10  Brewer  v.    Hugg,    114     Iowa  to    protect    the    landowner    from 
486,  87  N.  W.  409.  double  payment  or  other  injustice. 

11  May    consolidate    cases,    and  Flanagan    v.     O'Connell,     88    Mo. 
work  out  the  rights  of  all.     Dahl-  App.  1. 

borg  V.    Wyzanski,   175   Mass.    34,  12  See   §§  232-233. 

58  N.  E.  593.     Where  the  several  !•"  Julius  v.   Callahan,   63  Minn. 

liens    of    the    subcontractor    and  154,    65    N.    W.    267;    Mahoney   v. 

his  material  man  are  disputed  by  ^McWalters,   91    Hun    (N.   Y.)    247, 

the   landowner   in   proceedings   to  36  N.  Y.  Supp.  149. 

enforce  them,  the  court  will   not  i-*  Sprague    Inv.    Co.    v.    Mouat 

stay    the    proceedings    of    either;  Lumber  &  Investment  Co..  14  Colo. 

but  after  the  rights  to  such  liens  App.  107,  60  Pac.  179. 

have    been   testablished   the   court  ij  Rice  v.  Simpson,  26  Kan.  143. 


635  TRIAL JURY.  [§  266 

discretion  of  the  trial  judge. ^^^  Evidence  which  does  not  tend 
to  prove  or  disprove  the  matters  at  issue  should  not  be  re- 
ceived.i''' 

§  266.  Trial — Jury. — It  is  a  general  rule  that  in  order  to 
save  the  question  for  error,  the  objection  should  be  made  at 
the  time  the  evidence  is  ofifered.  As  heretofore  stated,  if  the 
action  is  treated  as  one  of  equitable  jurisdiction,  the  judge 
decides  issues  both  of  law  and  fact,  but  he  may  refer  any  fact 
to  a  jury  for  its  decision, ^^  and  if  the  action  is  treated  as 
one  at  law,  then  parties  are  entitled  to  a  common  law  jury 
trial.  In  some  jurisdictions,  however,  while  the  action  is 
regarded  as  an  equitable  one,  yet  the  parties  are  entitled 
to  have  a  jury  pass  upon  the  issues  of  fact.^^  As  in  other 
jury  trials,  the  court  may  allow  a  view  of  the  premises  by 
the  jury  in  charge  of  the  proper  officer.  Matters  seen  by 
the  jury  are  not  evidence  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term. 
The  purpose  of  the  view  is  merely  to  enable  the  jury  to  better 
understand  and  apply  the  evidence  introduced  in  the  court; 
the  judge  is  not  recjuired  to  be  present  at  such  a  view.-'^ 

16  Bardwell     v.     Anderson,     13  chanics'   liens    any   issue   of   fact 

Mont.    87,    32    Pac.    285;    "Ward   v.  shall,  on  demand  of  either  party, 

Kilpatrick,   85  N.  Y.   413,   39   Am.  be  tried  by  a  jury,  whose  verdict 

Rep.   674.  shall    be    conclusive    as    in    other 

!''■  Bardwell     v.     Anderson,     13  cases,  where  a  jury  is  demanded 

Mont.  87,  32  Pac.  285.  in  such  action,  but  neither  party 

18  Bradbury  v.  Butler,  1  Colo.  designates  what  issue  he  desires 
App.  430,  29  Pac.  463;  Huse  v.  to  have  tried  by  the  jury,  the 
"Washburn,  59  "Wis.  414,  18  N.  "W.  court  has  the  right,  of  its  own 
341.  motion,  to  submit  such  questions 

19  "Wilier  V.  Bergenthal,  50  Wis.  to  the  jury  as  it  deems  advisable, 
474,  7  N.  "W.  352.  Finding  raising  the  verdict  thereon  being  advisory 
presumption  as  to  date.  Monag-  merely,  and  the  remaining  issues 
han  V.  Goddard,  173  Mass.  468,  are  to  be  determined  by  the  court. 
53  N.  E.  895.  Inconsistent  find-  Bartlett  v.  Clough,  94  "Wis.  196, 
ings.      Richards    v.    O'Brien,    173  68  N.  W.  875. 

Mass.   332,   53    N.   E.    858.     Under  20  Moritz  v.  Larson,  70  "Wis.  569, 

Rev.    St.    Wis.,    §    3323,    providing      36  N.  W.  331. 
that    in    actions    to    enforce    me- 


§  267]  ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN.  636 

§  267.  Questions  of  law  and  fact. — In  jurisdictions  where 
the  foreclosure  of  the  lien  is  for  a  court  of  equity,  then  ques- 
tions of  law  and  fact  are  both  submitted  to  the  judge  and  it 
is  not  particularly  necessary  to  discriminate  between  them ; 
but  if,  either  by  reason  of  being  an  action  at  law  or  by  statu- 
tory provisions,  questions  of  fact  are  to  be  passed  upon  by 
a  jury,  it  then  becomes  quite  important  to  know  whether  the 
question  presented  is  one  of  law  or  one  of  fact.  Sometimes 
this  distinction  is  quite  evident,  but  at  other  times  the  dividing 
line  is  not  easily  discerned.^  Whether  or  not  the  complainant 
has  performed  the  things  that  bring  him  within  the  statutory 
provisions  creating  a  lien,  is  a  question  of  fact,^  but  whether 
the  statement  or  petition  sufficiently  avers  the  required  facts 
is  a  question  of  law.^  Whether  the  materials  are  so  furnished 
as  to  constitute  one  contract  or  separate  contracts,^  or  whether 
they  were  furnished  upon  the  credit  of  the  contractor  or  the 
building,^  or  whether  the  structure  is  an  old  one  or  a  new 
one,  where  the  statute  makes  such  fact  a  distinguishing  fea- 
ture,^ or  whether  the  material  was  furnished  within  a  certain 
time,  and  the  last  item  in  the  account  was  furnished  or  done 
in  good  faith,'^  or  whether  the  property  is  described  sufficiently 

iBell  V.  Meciim  (N.  J.  L.),  68  24  Pa.  St.,  507,  64  Am.  Dec.  675; 
Atl.  149.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Rider-Ericsson  Engine  Co.  v.  Fred- 
Mechanics'  Liens,  §288.  ericks,  25  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  72;  Scott 

2  Williams  V.  Porter,  51  :\Io.  441;  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Morgan,  217  Pa.  367, 
Moore  v.  Carter,  146  Pa.  492,  23  66  Atl.  566.  (Owner  a  con- 
Atl.  243,  29  W.  N.  Cas.  274;  Kelly  tractor.) 

V.  McGehee,   137   Pa.   443,   20  Atl.  ^  Mehl  v.  Fisher,  13  Pa.  Super. 

623,  26  W.  N.  Cas.  493.  Ct.    330;    Goeringer  v.    Schappert, 

3  William  v.  Porter,  51  Mo.  441.  10   Kulp.    (Pa.)    95.   14  York  Leg. 
4Clanagan  v.  O'Connell,  88  Mo.  Rec.  (Pa.)  92;  McDowell  v.  Riley, 

App.    1;    Western   Iron    Works   v.  8    Del.    Co.    (Pa.)      181,      16      Pa. 

Montana    Pulp    &    Paper    Co.,    30  Super.  Ct.  515. 
Mont.    550,    77    Pac.    413;    Helena  "Bankers'     Building     &     Loan 

Steam   Heating    &   Supply   Co.   v.  Assn.    v.    Williams    (Neb.)    96    N. 

Wells,  16  Mont.   65,  40  Pac.  78.  W.  6551. 
5  Odd  Fellows'   Hall   v.   ]Masser, 


637  QUESTIONS  OF  LAW  AND  FACT.  [§  267 

to  identify  it,*^*  or  what  material  can  be  used  in  the  erection 
of  a  building-,^  or  attached  to  a  building  so  as  to  become  a  part 
of  it,^*^  or  that  the  lien  claim  has  been  paid,^  or  how  much, 
or  what  land  is  covered  by  the  lien  claim/*^  or  whether  an 
assignee,  who  was  also  surety  on  the  contractor's  bond,  is 
finishing  the  building  as  "assignee"  or  on  his  own  individual 
credit,!^  or  wdiether  a  parol  contract  has  been  made  since  the 
written  one  upon  which  action  is  brought, ^2  ^re  all  questions 
of  fact  for  the  jury,  where  jury  trial  is  had.  The  court  may, 
if  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  sustain  a  lien,  dismiss 
the  action.^3  However,  where  the  scintilla  rule  prevails,  if 
there  is  any  evidence  at  all  which  will  sustain  the  lien,  the 
action  cannot  be  dismissed  without  submitting  the  same  to 
the  jury.  Whether  the  original  contract  has  been  waived  '•nd 
a  new  one  substituted,^'*  or  in  what  kind  of  pay,  cash  or  prop- 
erty, the  contractor  was  to  be  paid,^^  or  whether  the  contract 
was  performed  according  to  its  terms, ^"^  are  questions  of  fact. 
When  the  time  that  the  work  was  commenced  is  material, 
it  is  also  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury.^'''  So  if  the  lien  right 
depends  upon  whether  the  building  was  completed,  this  is  a 

7a  Union  Lumber  Co.  v.  Simon,  is  for  the  jury.     Stoke  v.  McCul- 

150  Cal.  751,  89  Pac.  1077.  lough,  107  Pa.  St.  39. 

8  Coverdill  v.  Heath,  12  Pa.  i3  Hengstenberg  v.  Hoyt,  109 
Super.  Ct.  15.  Mo.  App.  622,  83  S.  W.  539. 

8a-  Stevenson    v.    fWoodward,    3  i4  Wahlstrom    v.    Trulson,    165 

Cal.  App.  602,  86  Pac.  990.  Mass.  429,  43  N.  E.  183;  Moore  v. 

9  Corbett  v.  Greenlaw,  117  Carter,  146  Pa.  492,  23  Atl.  243, 
Mass.  167.  29  W.  N.  Cas.  274. 

10  James  v.  Van  Horn,  39  N.  J.  15  Pierce  v.  Marple,  148  Pa.  69, 
L.  353.                                                            23  Atl.  1008,  30  W.  N.  Cas.  31,  33 

11  McChesney    v.    Syracuse,    75      Am.  St.  808. 

Hun    (N.   Y.)    503,  27  N.  Y.  Supp.  le  Goodfellow    v.    Manning,    148 

508.  Pa.  96,  23  Atl.  1052.     Original  or 

12  Buckley  v.  Hann,  68  N.  J.  independent  contract.  Fish  Co. 
L.  624,  54  Atl.  825.  Where  a  sci.  v.  Young,  127  "Wis.  149,  106  N.  W. 
fa.  on  a  mechanic's  lien  has  been  795. 

regularly     served,     the     question  i~  Kelly   v.   Rosenstock,   45   Md. 

whether  the  claim  has  been  paid      389. 


§267] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN. 


638 


question  of  fact  for  the  jury.^"^  Likewise,  if  it  is  material 
whether  the  building  or  work  constitutes  a  kind  of  building  or 
work  that  comes  within  the  lien  law.^*  If  the  facts  are  ad- 
mitted, then  whether  or  not  the  building  was  the  kind  that 
comes  within  the  law  is  one  of  law  for  the  court  to  decide. ^^ 
Whether  the  description  in  the  statement  and  the  petition  are 
the  same,2o  or  the  description  is  sufficient  to  identify  the 
property  are  generally  considered  to  be  questions  of  fact  for 
a  jury .21  The  question  of  time  is  likewise  a  question  of  fact 
where  the  dispute  is  whether  the  lien  was  filed  within  the  re- 
quired time. -2 

§  268.  Instructions  to  jury. — In  all  jury  trials  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  judge  before  the  jury  retires  for  its  deliberations  to 
"charge  the  jury,"  that  is,  instruct  and  explain  to  the  jury  the 


I'aCole  V.  Barron,  S  Mo.  App. 
509. 

IS  Presbyterian  Church  v.  Alli- 
son, 10  Pa.  St.  413;  Furman  v. 
Masson,  6  Phila.  (Pa.)  222.  In 
an  action  for  a  lien  for  repairs 
done  on  a  brick  machine,  the 
question  whether  the  title  to  the 
machine  had  passed,  before  the 
alterations,  to  the  owner  of  the 
premises,  and  had  become  a  fix- 
ture for  manufacturing  purposes, 
within  the  mechanic's  lien  law, 
was  a  question  for  the  jury. 
American  Brick  &  Tile  Co.  v. 
Drinkhouse,  59  N.  J.  L.  462,  36 
Atl.    1034. 

Constitutes  part  of  building. — 
Whether  or  not  a  lightning  rod 
erected  on  a  building  is  the  sub- 
ject of  a  mechanic's  lien  is  a 
question  of  fact,  requiring  a  de- 
termination of  a  jury,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  evidence  or  admissions 
as    to    the    circumstances.      Bar- 


ber V.   Roth,   19   Pa.   Co.   Ct.    366. 

19  Pennsylvania.  —  Warren  v. 
Freeman,  1S7  Pa.  St.  455,  41  Atl. 
290;  Armstrong  v.  Ware,  1  Phila. 
(Pa.)  213,  8  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  124; 
Smith  V.  Nelson,  2  Phila.  (Pa.) 
113;  Norris'  Appeal,  30  Pa.  St. 
122;  Munger  v.  Silsbee,  64  Pa.  St. 
454. 

20  Kennedy  v.  House,  41  Pa.  St. 
39,  80  Am.  Dec.  594;  Ewing  v. 
Barras,  4  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  467; 
Hoffmaster  v.  Knupp,  15  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.    140. 

21  Dodge  V.  Hall,  168  Mass. 
435,  47  N.  E.  110;  Brown  v.  West, 
7  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  619. 

22  Holden  v.  Winslow,  IS  Pa. 
St.  160;  Galland  v.  Schroeder 
(Pa.).  12  Atl.  866.  Whether  an 
item  of  work  done  within  four 
months  from  the  filing  of  a  claim 
for  a  lien  is  so  connected  with 
the  earlier  items  that  together 
they   constitute   one    debt,    is    for 


639 


INSTRUCTIONS   TO-   JURY. 


[§268 


law  applicable  to  the  case  under  consideration. ^  In  the  fore- 
closure of  mechanics'  liens,  the  rule  is  the  same  as  in  other 
cases  where  a  matter  is  submitted  to  the  jury;  that  is,  ques- 
tions of  law  are  for  the  decision  of  the  court  and  those  of 
fact  for  the  jury.^  Among  other  things,  the  jury  should  be 
charged  and  the  law  pointed  out,  that  all  requirements  of  the 
statute  made  conditions  precedent  to  the  right  to  a  lien 
must  have  been  complied  with  in  order  for  the  plaintiff  to 
recover. 3  This  includes  performance  of  the  contract.'*  How- 
ever, if  the  formal  matters  are  admitted,  it  will  not  be  error 
to  neglect  to  charge  upon  those  matters.^  The  instructions 
should  not  be  based  upon  an  hypothesis,  concerning  which 
there  is  no  evidence.^  Neither  should  a  matter  be  submitted  to 
a  jury  which  is  not  made  an  issue  by  the  pleadings  or  evi- 
dence.'^ 


the  jury,  where  such  an  inference 
is  permissible  under  the  testi- 
mony. Downington  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Franklin  Paper  Mills,  63  N.  J.  L. 
32,  42  Atl.  765. 

1  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,  §  590. 

2  Questions  of  law  and  fact. 
See   §  267. 

3  Cote  V.  Schoen,  38  W.  N.  Cas. 
(Pa.)  382;  Hall  v.  Johnson,  57 
Mo.  521. 

4  Lombard  v.  Johnson,  76  111. 
599. 

5  Kelly  V.  Rowane,  33  Mo.  App. 
4-40. 

0  Gk)ldstein  v.  Leake,  138  Ala. 
573,  36  So.  458.  In  an  action  by 
a  subcontractor  to  enforce  a  me- 
chanic's lien,  in  which  the  orig- 
inal contractor  was  made  a  party 
defendant,  and  claimed  certain 
set-offs  against  the  plaintiff  for 
money  paid  on  plaintiff's  account, 
a  charge  that  defendant  was  en- 


titled to  credit  for  the  amounts 
claimed,  if,  by  the  usual  course 
of  dealing  between  plaintiff  and 
defendant,  defendant  had  the 
right  to  believe  that  he  was  au- 
thorized to  pay  the  amounts  for 
plaintiff,  is  erroneous,  where 
there  was  no  evidence  as  to  the 
previous  course  of  dealing  be- 
tween the  parties.  Trippensee  v. 
Braun  (Mo.  App.),  78  S.  W.  674. 
"  Stillings  V.  Haggerty,  59  Hun. 
(N.  Y.)  622,  12  N.  Y.  Supp.  813; 
Girard  Point  Storage  Co.  v. 
Riehle  (Pa.),  12  Atl.  172;  Burrell 
V.  Way,  176  Mass.  164,  57  N.  E. 
335.  Hindered  by  defendant  from 
finishing  contract.  Heiman  v. 
Schroeder,  74  111.  158.  Comple- 
tion of  house.  Okisko  Co.  v. 
Matthews,  3  Md.  168.  Indebted- 
ness— acceptance  of  work — new 
agreement.  General  Fire  Ex- 
tinguisher Co.  V.  Schwartz  Bros. 
Commission  Co.,   165   Mo.   171,   65 


§269] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN, 


640 


§  269.  Verdict  and  findings. — Where,  under  the  law,  the 
issues  of  fact  and  law  are  both  submitted  to  the  judge  for 
decision,  the  decision  rendered  by  him  is  usually  called  a 
finding,  and  where  the  law  requires  the  case  to  be  submitted 
to  the  jury,  the  court  can  not  establish  the  lien  without  a 
verdict  of  the  jury  upon  the  issues  which  the  law  requires 
to  be  submitted  to  the  jury.^  There  must  be  at  least  an 
affirmative  finding  in  all  material  matters.^  The  laws  of  the 
different  states  usually  determine  the  form  of  verdict  which 


S.  W.  318.  Collateral  security. 
Ittner  -v.  Hughes,  133  Mo.  679, 
34  S.  W.  1110.  Extras— change 
of  plans.  Lecoutout  Bros.  Stair 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Maddox,  100  Mo.  App. 
57,  84  S.  W.  99.  Damage  for  fail- 
ure to  complete — breach  of  con- 
tract. Kelly  V.  Rowane,  33  Mo. 
App.  440.  Finding  for  plaintiff 
if  evidence  shows  debt.  Wood  v. 
Atlanta,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  131  N.  C.  48, 
42  S.  E.  462.  Changes  in  original 
contract.  Moore  v.  Carter,  146 
Pa.  492,  23  Atl.  243,  29  W.  N.  Cas. 
(Pa.)  274.  Credit  of  building,  etc. 
Coverdill  v.  Heath,  12  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  15.  Finding  what  was  con- 
tract. Williamson  v.  Smith 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  79  S.  W.  51. 

1  Florence  Bldg.  &  Inv.  Assn.  v. 
Schall,  107  Ala.  531,  18  So.  108; 
Brooks  v.  Blackwell,  76  Mo.  309; 
Sprague  v.  Brown,  178  Mass.  220, 
59  N.  E.  631.  Sess.  Laws  Idaho, 
1899,  p.  147,  an  act  to  secure  me- 
chanics' and  laborers'  liens,  by 
section  4  requires  the  trial  court 
to  ascertain  the  amount  of  land 
necessary  for  the  convenient  use 
of  the  property  to  be  sold,  and 
it  is  error  not  to  do  so.  Robert- 
son V.  ]Moore,  10  Idaho  115,  77 
Pac.  218.     When  an  auditor  in  a 


mechanic's  lien  case  found  that 
"petitioner  made  a  just  and  true 
statement  of  the  amount  due  him 
for  materials  furnished"  with  cer- 
tain exceptions,  such  finding  does 
not  show,  prima  facie,  that  pe- 
titioner's statement  was  not  just 
and  true.  Buck  v.  Hall,  170 
Mass.  419,  49  N.  E.  658.  Condi- 
tional sale — need  not  find  that 
claimant  elected  to  treat  sale  as 
absolute.  Elwood  State  Bank  v. 
Mock,  40  Ind.  App.  685,  82  N.  E. 
1003.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit. 
Mechanics'  Liens,   §  290. 

2  Johnson  v.  Simmons,  123  Ala. 
564,  26  So.  650.  Where  special 
findings  showed  that  the  mate- 
rial was  sold  to  the  contractor 
and  charged  to  him  and  was  used 
in  the  construction  of  a  building, 
but  did  not  state  that  plaintiff 
furnished  the  material  for  the 
particular  building  on  which  he 
sought  to  enforce  a  lien,  it  can- 
not be  maintained.  Miller  v. 
Fosdick,  26  Ind.  App.  152,  59  N. 
E.  4SS.  See  as  to  sufficient  spe- 
cific finding  to  support.  Nelson 
Bennett  Co.  v.  Twin  Falls  Land 
&  Water  Co.,  14  Idaho  5,  93  Pac. 
789.     - 


641 


VERDICT  AND  FINDINGS. 


[§269 


should  be  followed  in  the  trial  of  mechanic's  lien  cases.^ 
Where  all  parties  agree  a  verdict  will  be  sustained,  even 
though  the  strict  legal  form  has  not  been  pursued."*  It  is 
neither  necessary  nor  proper  that  the  verdict  or  finding  shall 
narrate  the  evidence  upon  which  the  result  is  based. '^  Where 
a  finding  is  made  in  a  court  of  equity  upon  a  reference  to  a 
jury,  although  it  may  be  irregular,  the  appellate  court  may 
correct  the  same  and  award  judgment*'  in  accordance  with 
justice  and  the  facts.'''  A  general  finding  for  the  plaintiff  es- 
tablishes the  right  to  a  lien  with  attaching  costs,^  even  though 
there  is  no  specific  order  to  foreclose.^  The  finding  of  facts 
made  by  a  trial  court  must  all  be  considered  together  to  de- 


3  Where  the  complaint  contains 
the  common  counts  and  a  special 
count,  describing  the  structure 
and  improvements  sought  to  be 
charged  with  sufficient  certainty, 
and  issue  is  joined  on  the  pleas 
of  payment  and  set-off  and  the 
general  issue,  a  verdict  finding 
"the  issues  in  favor  of  plaintiff, 
$100,"  though  informal,  is  suffi- 
cient to  support  a  judgment  es- 
tablishing a  lien  for  that  sum  on 
the  structure  and  improvements. 
Bedsole  v.  Peters,  79  Ala.  133. 
The  verdict  must  set  forth  the 
lien  and  the  premises  on  which 
it  is  claimed.  Snow  v.  Council, 
6.5  Ga.  123. 

4  McCorroack  v.  Phillips,  4  Dak. 
506,   34   N.   W.   39. 

5  Marble  Lime  Co.  v.  Lords- 
burg  Hotel  Co.,  96  Cal.  332,  31 
Pac.  164. 

0  Garrett  v.  Stevenson,  S  111. 
261. 

7  Miller  v.  Ticknor,  7  III.  App. 
393.  Where  the  jury  finds  that 
there  is  due  from  the  owner  of  a 
building  to  the  contractor  a  cer- 


tain sum,  and  from  said  contract- 
or to  a  subcontractor,  who  was  a 
party  to  the  suit,  another  sum, 
the  court  may  put  the  verdict  in 
form  by  finding,  in  the  decree, 
that  there  is  due  from  the  owner 
to  the  contractor  the  aggregate 
of  both  sums,  out  of  which  ag- 
gregate there  is  due  from  the  con- 
tractor to  the  subcontractor  the 
sum  so  found  by  the  verdict  to 
be  due  to  him.  Schnell  v.  Clem- 
ents,  73   111.   613. 

«  Guthrie  v.  Brown,  42  Neb. 
652,   60   N.   W.   939. 

'J  The  verdict,  so  far  as  it  re- 
lated to  the  plaintiff's  right  to 
a  lien,  was  simply  "that  he  is 
entitled  to  a  lien  therefor."  It 
was  not  error  to  enter  judgment 
making  the  lien  conform  to  that 
clsimed  in  the  complaint.  Mc- 
Cormack  v.  Phillips,  4  Dak.  506, 
34  N.  W.  39.  It  was  not  neces- 
sary that  the  verdict  should  di- 
rect such  foreclosure.  If  the 
lien  was  subsisting  at  the  time, 
the  law  authorized  its  foreclos- 
ure, regardless  of  what  the  jury 


41 


§270] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


642 


termine  its  sufficiency. i°  However  it  must  be  evident  from 
the  verdict  or  finding  that  the  material  facts  constituting  a 
Hen  have  been  found  to  have  been  done  to  the  proper  estab- 
Hshment  of  the  lien.^^  Thus  the  value  of  materials  furnished 
Avill  be  sustained  when  the  court  finds  that  the  persons  were 
employed  by  the  contractor  at  a  certain  price, ^-  and  that  orders 
from  time  to  time  for  the  construction,  erection  and  repair  of 
a  manufacturing  plant  are  sufificient  to  show  that  they  were 
furnished  on  the  part  of  the  material  man  to  be  used  for  that 
purpose. ^'^  A  verdict  or  finding  that  does  not  show  the  re- 
quired conditions  establishing  such  a  contract  between  the 
plintiiT  and  owner  is  insufficient.^^ 

§  270.  Verdict  and  finding  (continued). — Necessarily,  in  or- 
der for  a  verdict  or  finding  to  be  sustained,  it  must  respond  to 
the  issues  made  in  the  case.^     However,  if  no  one  was  misled,^ 


might  desire  or  direct.  Warner 
V.  Scottish  Mortgage,  &c.,  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  27  S.  W.  817. 

1"  El  Reno  Electric  Light  & 
Telephone  Co.  v.  Jennison,  5 
Okla.  759,  50  Pac.  144.  Where 
the  judge  finds  as  a  matter  of 
fact  that,  at  the  time  the  lien 
was  filed,  there  was  due  from 
the  owner  of  the  building  to  the 
contractor  a  larger  sum  than  was 
demanded  by  the  plaintiff,  and  as 
a  conclusion  of  law  he  finds  that 
a  specified  sum  is  due  to  the 
plaintiff,  for  which  he  has  a  lien 
on  the  premises,  the  conclusion 
of  law  is  correct.  Smith  v.  Coe, 
29  N.  Y.   666. 

11  Petersen  v.  Shain  (Cal.),  33 
Pac.   1086. 

12  Booth  V.  Pendola,  88  Cal.  36, 
23  Pac.  200,  25  Pac.  1101. 

13  Goodrich  v.  Gillies,  62  Hun 
(N.    Y.)    479,    17   N.    Y.    Supp.    88. 


Finding  will  not  justify  failure  to 
file  in  proper  county.  Meehan  v. 
Zeh,   77   Minn.   63,   79   N.   W.    655. 

i-t  Minnich  v.  Darling,  8  Ind. 
App.  539,  36  N.  E.  173. 

Balance  due. — A  finding  that 
the  value  of  the  labor  and  mate- 
rial was,  as  agreed,  a  named 
amount;  that  a  named  amount 
had  been  paid,  leaving  a 
stated  balance  due  unpaid;  and 
that  such  balance  was  "for  work 
done  and  materials  furnished  for 
defendant's  house" — sufficiently 
shows  that  the  materials  and 
work  were  of  the  value  agreed. 
Brigham  v.  Dewald,  7  Ind.  App. 
115,  34  N.   E.  498. 

1  Califoruia. — Gibson  v.  Wheel- 
er. 110  Cal.  243,  42  Pac.  810; 
Green  v.  Chandler,  54  Cal.  626. 

Miiiiiosota. — Scheible  v.  Schick- 
ler,   63   Minn.   471,   65  N.  W.  920; 


643 


VERDICT   AND   FINDINGS. 


[§270 


or  the  verdict  is  construed  as  applying  to  the  issues  made,  it 
will  not  be  set  aside.^  It  has  been  before  stated  that  the  is- 
sues must  be  found  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  the  lien  or  it 
can  not  be  sustained."*  A  finding  of  one  fact  will  not  neces- 
sarily raise  a  presumption  of  a  like  decision  on  another  fact,^ 
but  a  reasonable  interpretation  should  be  given  to  the  extent 
and  scope  of  the  finding  or  verdict.^  However,  if  the  matter 
found  in  the  verdict  or  finding  is  so  contradictory  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  ascertain  the  meaning  intended  by  the  jury,  the  ver- 


Fergestad  v.  Gjertsen,  46  Minn. 
369,   49   N.   W.   127. 

Nebraska. — Storer  v.  Boggs,  3 
Neb.    (Unoff.)    301,  91   N.   W.   555. 

jVew  York. — Hauptman  v.  Cat- 
lin,  1  E.  D.  Smith   (N.  Y.)   729. 

In  an  action  by  a  subcontract- 
or against  the  owner  and  con- 
tractor, a  verdict  stating  that  the 
"plaintiffs  are  entitled  to  a  lien," 
and  we  "assess  their  damages  at 
$565.81,"  is  sufficiently  responsive 
to  the  issues,  as  under  the  plead- 
ings, only  one  of  the  defendants 
could  be  responsible.  Cole  v. 
Barron,  8  Mo.  App.  509. 

2  In  mechanic's  lien  foreclos- 
ure, the  notices  described  the 
property  as  lots  94  and  95,  in  the 
town  of  K.  The  findings  showed 
that  the  materials  were  furnished 
for,  and  the  work  done  on,  lots 
94  and  95  in  A.  D.  Toner's  ad- 
dition to  the  town  of  K.  In  the 
absence  of  a  showing  that  a 
party  was  misled,  there  was  no 
variance.  Northwestern  Loan  & 
Inv.  Assn.  v.  McFiierriun,  23  Ind. 
App.  250,  54  N.  E.  130. 

3  Orlandi  v.  Gray,  125  Cal.  372, 
58   Pac.   15.     Where   it   was  con- 


ceded that  the  contract  had  not 
been  fully  performed,  a  finding 
by  the  jury  on  the  first  issue, 
"did  the  petitioners  perform  the 
labor  and  furnish  the  materials 
set  forth  in  the  petition  under 
the  contract?"  If  "No"  was,  in 
connection  with  other  findings, 
merely  to  the  effect  that  the  con- 
tract had  not  been  completely 
performed.  Moore  v.  Dugan,  179 
Mass.   153,  60  N.   E.   488. 

■1  Young  V.  Berger,  132  Ind. 
530,  32  N.  E.   318. 

5  Clark  V.  Huey,  12  Ind.  App. 
224,  40  N.  E.  152;  Moritz  v.  Lar- 
sen,  70  Wis.  569,  36  N.  W.  331. 

6  Higley  v.  Ringle,  57  Kan.  222, 
45  Pac.  619.  In  a  trial  the  court 
found  that  the  equitable  owner 
of  the  lot  and  mill  wherein  they 
were  used  purchased  them  to  be 
used  on  such  property,  but  that 
there  was  no  evidence  that  the 
plaintiff  knew  on  what  particular 
lot  or  property  they  were  to  be 
used.  Equivalent  to  a  finding 
that  the  understanding  was 
that  they  were  to  be  used  in  the 
purchaser's  mill,  and  entitled 
plaintiff  to  his  lien.  Atkins  v. 
Little,  17  Minn.  342. 


§271] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


644 


diet  can  not  standj  but  if  it  is  possible  to  reconcile  the  state- 
ments, then  the  verdict  will  not  be  disturbed.^  Where  the 
law  requires  a  thing  to  be  done  at  a  certain  time,  a  finding  that  it 
was  done  on  or  about  a  certain  date  is  too  indefinite.^  However,  if 
there  is  sufficient  time  remaining  in  which  an  act  may  be  valid, 
such  a  finding  will  not  be  too  indefinite. ^*^  But  the  verdict  must  be 
definite  in  the. amount  awarded  the  plaintiff.^ ^  If  the  action 
is  one  in  chancery,  then  the  verdict  is  not  conclusive,  it  merely 
being  held  as  advice  to  the  court  upon  the  issues  present- 
ed,^^  but  if  it  is  one  at  law  or  where  by  statute  the  issues  of 
fact  must  be  passed  upon  by  a  jury,  the  verdict  is  conclusive 
upon  facts  submitted  to  the  jury  and  has  the  same  force  and 
effect  as  in  all  actions  at  law.^^ 

§  271.  Finding,  decree  or  judgment. — The  finding,  decree  or 
judgment  in  an  action  is  the  conclusion  of  law  upon  the  facts 
found  and  admitted  by  the  parties,  or  upon  their  default  in  the 
course  of  the  suit.^  Generally  a  judgment  or  decree  does  not 
become  a  lien  until  the  time  it  is  entered.^     A  judgment  or  de- 


7  Cawley  v.  Day,  4  S.  Dak.  221, 
56  N.   W.   749. 

8  Marble  Lime  Co.  v.  Lordsburg 
Hotel  Co.,  96  Cal.  332,  31  Pac. 
164;  Harlan  v.  Stufflebeem,  87 
Cal.  508,  25  Pac.  686. 

9  Cohn  V.  Wright,  89  Cal.  86, 
26    Pac.    643. 

10  In  an  action  brought  April 
18,  1879,  the  finding  by  the  jury 
that  the  building  was  completed 
"on  or  about  April  5,  1870,"  was 
not  too  indefinite,  where  60  days 
are  allowed  after  completion  in 
which  to  file  liens.  Sturges  v. 
Green,    27    Kan.    235. 

11  Tisdale  v.  Alabama,  &c., 
Lumber  Co.,  131  Ala.  456,  31  So. 
729. 

12  Sharkev  v.  Miller,  69  111.  560. 


13  Bentley  v.  Davidson,  74  Wis. 
420,   43   N.   W.   139. 

1  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Me- 
chanics' Liens,  §  291. 

-  Redman  v.  Williamson,  2  Iowa 
488;  Jennings  v.  Newman,  52 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  282;  Howes  v. 
Dolan,  9  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  586,  44 
W.   N.  C.    (Pa.)    62. 

Lien  of  material  men;  charac- 
ter of,  and  how  perfected. — The 
lien  given  by  the  statute  to  ma- 
terial men,  is  neither  a  jus  in  re, 
nor  a  jus  ad  rem,  but  simply  a 
right  to  charge  the  property  af- 
fected by  it  with  the  payment  of 
the  particular  debt,  in  preference 
and  priority  to  other  debts,  on 
compliance  with  the  requisitions 
of  the  statute;   and  it  is  inchoate 


645 


FINDING DECREE  AND  JUDGMENT. 


[§271 


cree  on  a  mechanic's  lien  does  not  create  a  lien ;  it  is  a  mere 
finding  that  the  lien  is  there  and  the  holder  is  entitled  to  have 
it  enforced,  and  in  matter  of  its  form  and  requisites  in  general 
must  necessarily  be  controlled  by  the  law  of  the  forum  where 
the  action  is  brought.^  The  judgment  should  be  in  rem/  and 
should  designate  the  land  that  is  to  be  taken  to  satisfy  the 
lien,'*^  and  should  state  the  amount  of  the  debt.^  If  there  is 
more  than  one  property  where  the  lien  is  against  several,  the 
judgment  should  specify  the  amount  due  from  each.*'  If  more 
than  one  person  is  to  be  held  liable  it  ought  to  specify  what  is. 
due  from  each,  as  well  as  the  property  subject  to  the  lien.'^ 
Where  a  number  of  persons  have  been  brought  into  the  case, 


until  perfected  by  rendition  of 
a  judgment  in  rem,  in  the  mode 
pointed  out  by  the  statute.  Por- 
ter V.  Miles,  67  Ala.  130. 

3  Dennistoun  v.  McAllister,  4 
E.    D.   Smith    (N.   Y.)    729. 

4  Plummer  v.  Eckenrode,  50 
Md.  225;  Sly  v.  Pattee,  58  N.  H. 
102;  Norton  v.  Sinkhorn,  61  N.  J. 
Eq.  508,  48  Atl.  822,  63  N.  J.  Eq. 
313,  50  Atl.  506. 

Not  a  Personal  Judgment. — 
Though  in  the  form  of  a  personal 
judgment,  which  contains  no  di- 
rection that  execution  shall  issue, 
but  declares  that  it  shall  be  sat- 
isfied by  a  sale  of  the  property 
on  which  the  lien  is  claimed,  and 
that  on  the  return  of  the  sheriff 
a  judgment  shall  be  docketed 
against  defendant  for  any  defi- 
ciency, is  not  objectionable  as  be- 
ing a  personal  judgment.  Cole 
V.  Custer  County  Agricultural. 
&c.  Assn.,  3  S.  Dak.  272,  52  N. 
W.  1086.  Ordering  that  "plaintiff 
do  have  and  recover  of  defend- 
ant," a  certain  sum,  with  costs, 
is    not    a    personal    judgment    for 


the  sum  named,  but  merely  an 
assessment  of  the  sum  due,  as  re- 
quired by  statute.  Crocker  v. 
Currier,  65  Wis.  662,  27  N.  W.  825. 
4a  Stephens  v.  Duffy,  41  Ind. 
App.  385,  83  N.  E.   268. 

5  Plummer  v.  Eckenrode,  50 
Md.  225. 

6  Treusch  v.  Shryock,  55  Md. 
330,  Dahlborg  v.  Wyzanski.  175 
Mass.  34,  58  N.  E.  593;  Bowman 
V.  McLaughlin,  45  Miss.  461. 
Rev.  St.  1889,  Missouri,  §  6718, 
provides  that  a  judgment  enforc- 
ing a  mechanic's  lien  shall  be 
against  the  debtor,  as  in  ordinary 
cases,  "with  the  addition  that,  if 
no  sufficient  property  of  the  debt- 
or can  be  found  to  satisfy  such 
judgment  and  costs  of  suit,  then 
the  residue  thereof  shall  be 
levied"  on  the  property  charged 
with  the  lien,  and,  unless  such 
addition  is  embodied  in  the  judg- 
ment, it  is  fatally  defective.  Far- 
ley v.  Cammann,  43  Mo.  App.  168. 

7  Stark  V.  Crismore,  100  111. 
App.  392;  Reilly  v.  Hudson,  62 
Mo.   383;   Farley  v.  Cammann,  43 


§271]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  646 

only  one  decree  or  decision  should  be  made  covering  substan- 
tially all  the  issues  decided  and  declaring-  the  priorities  of  the 
several  liens.*  The  judgment  in  this  kind  of  a  case  is  analo- 
gous to  a  judgment  in  foreclosure  of  a  mortgage,  and  should 
be  made  with  the  same  degree  of  certainty,^  and  ordiharily  the 
judgment  need  not  state  that  the  sum  found  due  is  for  work, 
if  there  is  a  general  finding  of  the  truth  of  the  allegations  of 
the  complaint. ^'^  Under  some  statutes,  however,  it  must  be 
found  that  the  material  was  purchased  to  be  used  and  actually 
was  used  in  the  building  upon  the  land  sought  to  be  made  lia- 
ble for  the  lien,  and  it  will  be  well  to  state  this  fact  in  the  de- 
cree.^^  The  action  being  in  rem,  personal  service  is  not  neces- 
sary for  a  valid  decree.^-  Where  the  entire  amount  of  the 
indebtedness  is  not  yet  due,  judgment  should  be  rendered  for 
what  is  due  and  as  the  other  amounts  become  due,  judgments 
may  likewise  be  entered. ^^ 

§  272.     Judgment    by    default — Sufficiency — Description. — 

The  conditions  upon  which  a  decree  by  default  can  be  lawfully 
rendered  depend  upon  the  statutes  and  rules  of  court  in  which 
the  action  is  brought. ^  Where  a  prayer  is  merely  for  a  decree 
as  permitted  by  the  mechanic's  lien  law,  a  default  judgment  can 

Mo.    App.    168.      Against    original  A   decree    in    favor   of   a   subcon- 

contractor  and  owner.     Julien  v.  tractor    is    not   erroneous    in    not 

Ristow    Poths    Mfg.    Co.,    54    111.  making    the    contractor    a    party, 

App.  460.  where    it    appears    that   the    con- 

s  Holl  V.  Long,  34  Misc.   (X.  Y.)  tractor   was   beyond   the  jurisdic- 

1,   68   N.  Y.   Supp.   522.  tion  of  the  court.     Miller  v.  Cal- 

9  Althause  v.  Warren,  2  E.  D.  umet  Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.,  121  111. 
Smith    (N.    Y.)    657.  App.  56.     See  Process,  §§  232-234. 

10  Duckwall  V.  Jones,  156  Ind.  i3  El  Reno  Electric  Light  & 
682,  58  N.  E.  1055,  60  N.  E.  797;  Telephone  Co.  v.  Jennison,  5 
Walker     v.     O'Donohoe,     67     i\Io.      Okla.  759,  50  Pac.  144. 

App.  660.  1  Welde   v.   Henderson,   53   Hun 

11  Wilson  V.  Nugent,  125  Cal.  (X.  Y.)  633.  G  N.  Y.  Supp.  176; 
280,  57   Pac.   1008.  Johnson  v.  Scofield.  22  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

12  O'Rourke  v.  Butte  Lodge  Xo.  382,  8  Pa.  Dist.  410;  Ruhland  v. 
14,    19    Mont.    541,    48    Pac.    1106.  Alexander,  19  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  577,  41 


647 


JUDGMENT   BY   DEFAULT. 


[§272 


not  be  entered  ;  it  might  be  otherwise  where  the  prayer  is  for  other 
and  further  rehef.-  The  rule  is  very  broad  and  varies  considerably 
in  various  jurisdictions  in  the  discretion  of  the  court.^  The  decree 
should  be  certain  enough  and  contain  sufficient  to  show  that 
it  is  justified  under  the  law,'*  and  that  the  lien  was  given  with- 
in the  time  allowed.^  But  no  particular  form  is  required.*^  It 
should  be  sufficiently  certain  to  enable  the  execution  officer  to 
identify  the  property  which  is  to  be  sold  to  satisfy  the  lien." 


W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  16.  The  court 
should  decree  its  enforcement  for 
the  amount  tendered,  even  though 
it  is  adjudged  that  the  lien  is 
invalid.  Decree,  Campbell  v. 
William  Cameron  &  Co.,  5  Ind. 
Ter.  323,  82  S.  W.  762,  re- 
versed, Cameron  v.  Camp- 
bell, 141  Fed.  32,  72  C.  C.  A.  520. 
See  ante.  Presumptions,  §256; 
iBurden  of  Proof,  §  257. 

2  Arata  v.  Tellurium  Gold,  &c. 
Min.  Co.,  65  Cal.  340,  4  Pac.  195. 

3  Clear  Creek  Gold  &  Silver 
Min.  Co.  V.  Root,  1  Colo.  374. 

Instances. — A  decree  to  enforce 
a  mechanic's  lien  ordering  a  sale 
of  the  land  on  default  by  defend- 
ants in  the  payment  of  a  certain 
sum,  does  not  impose  a  personal 
liability  on  defendants.  Bum- 
gartner  v.  Hall,  163  111.  136,  45 
N.  E.  168.  In  moving  to  set  aside 
the  default,  the  garnishee  must 
also  show  a  sufficient  excuse  for 
the  default.  Parmenter  v.  Childs. 
12  Iowa,  22.  Where  the  owner 
makes  default,  and  the  evidence 
does  not  show  that  a  trust  deed 
prior  to  the  lien  has  been  fore- 
closed, and  the  owner's  equity  of 
redemption    sold,    plaintiff   is    en- 


titled to  a  judgment  subjecting 
the  owner's  right  of  redemption 
to  the  satisfaction  of  his  debt. 
Shultze  V.  Alamo  Ice,  &c.  Brew. 
Co.,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  236,  21  S. 
W.  160. 

4  California. — Wilson  v.  Nugent 
125  Cal.  280,  57  Pac.  1008;  Ken- 
nedy-Shaw Lumber  Co.  v.  Priet, 
113  Cal.  291,  45  Pac.  336;  Nei- 
haus  V.  Morgan  (Cal.),  45  Pac. 
255. 

Kansas.— Kansas  Loan  &  Trust 
Co.  V.  Phelps,  &c..  Windmill  Co., 
7  Kan.  App.  469,  54  Pac.  136. 

Maine. — Johnson  v.  Pike,  35 
Me.  291. 

Missouri.— Fink  v.  Remick,  33 
Mo.  App.  624. 

Wisconsin.  —  Carney  v.  La 
Crosse,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  15  Wis.  558, 
82  Am.  Dec.  698. 

5  Nibbe   v.   Brauhn,   24    111.   268. 

6  Decker  v.  O'Brien,  1  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  81,  36  N.  Y.  Supp. 
1079. 

7  Buckley  v.  Boutellier,  61  111. 
293;  Snow  v.  Council,  65  Ga.  123; 
Lecoutour  v.  Peters,  57  Mo.  App. 
449;  Cole  v.  Custer  County  Agri- 
cultural, &c.,  Assn.,  3  S.  Dak.  272, 
52  N.  W.   1086. 


273] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


648 


A  mere  clerical  error,  however,  will  not  destroy  its  priority.^ 
It  must  not  describe  more  than  is  legally  liable  for  the  lien,^^ 
or  it  will  be  invalid,  especially  as  to  the  excess,^ ^  and  in  some 
cases  will  be  held  to  include  only  so  much  of  the  land  as  is  cov- 
ered by  the  buildings. ^^  'piig  courts  have  held  that  it  ought 
not  to  be  set  aside  for  failure  to  properly  describe  the  land  if 
there  is  some  part  that  can  be  identified  from  the  description, 
which  is  subject  to  the  lien.^'"  And  if  the  petition  gives  suffi- 
cient description,  all  the  details  need  not  be  repeated  in  the  de- 
cree.^'* 

§273.      Judgment — Conformity    to    previous    proceedings. — 

-The  judgment  must  correspond  with  the  material  averments 
of  the  petition, 1  and  be  warranted  by  the  issues  in  the  case,- 
and  evidence  submitted.^      It  cannot  be  in  favor  of  a  person 


9  McCoy  V.  Quick,  30  Wis.   521. 

10  Maxwell  v.  Koeritz,  35  111. 
App.  300. 

11  Dusick  V.  INIeiselbach,  118 
Wis.   240,   95   N.  W.   144. 

12  Tibbetts  v.  Moors,  23  Cal. 
208. 

13  Sidlinger  v.  Kerkow,  82  Cal. 
42,  22  Pac.  932.  A  judgment  de- 
scribed the  property  subjected  to 
the  lien  as  the  one-half  interest 
therein  of  the  defendant.  Inas- 
much as  it  did  not  appear  that 
any  greater  interest  was  charged 
than  was  owned  by  the  defend- 
ant, the  judgment  was  in  accord- 
ance with  the  mandate  of  this 
court  on  a  prior  appeal  of  the 
cause.  Vanriper  v.  Morton,  65 
Mo.  App.  429.  Where  there  is  a 
finding  that  three  contiguous  lots 
in  a  city  block  were  used  as  one, 
a  judgment  giving  a  lien  upon 
the  entire  tract  will  not  be  dis- 
turbed for  the  reason  that  the 
lien    should    have    been    confined 


to  the  single  lot  upon  which  the 
house  was  built.  Meinholz  v. 
Grodt,   4    Mo.   App.    568. 

1-1  Dusy  V.  Prudom,  95  Cal.  646, 
30  Pac.  798.  A  person  not  served 
with  process  not  bound.  Alberti 
V.  Moore,    (Okla.)    93  Pac.  543. 

1  Porter  v.  Miles,  67  Ala.  130, 
Laughlin  v.  Reed,  89  Me.  226,  36 
Atl.  131. 

2  Lothian  v.  Wood,  55  Cal.  159; 
Roberts  v.  Wilcoxson,  36  Ark. 
355;  Glos  v.  John  O'Brien  Lum- 
ber Co.,  183  111.  211,  55  N.  E.  712; 
Du  Bay  v.  Uline,  6  Wis.  588, 
[560].  Also  as  to  description. 
Adams  v.  Cook,  55  Tex.  161.  In 
an  action  in  assumpsit  a  judg- 
ment to  enforce  a  mechanic's 
lien  cannot  be  entered.  Rupe  v. 
New  Mexico  Lumber  Assn.,  3  N. 
Mex.   261,  5   Pac.   730. 

3  Perkins  v.  Boyd,  16  Colo.  App. 
266,  65  Pac.  350;  Bearden  v. 
Miller,  54  Mo.  App.  199. 


649 


JUDGMENT PREVIOUS    PROCEEDINGS. 


^273 


not  entitled  to  it/  or  for  items  not  set  up  in  the  pleadings.^ 
The  items  not  properly  included  may  on  motion  be  stricken 
out  and  the  decree  allowed  to  stand.*'  Generally  where  the 
action  is  an  equitable  one,  the  court  will  conform  the  decree  to 
the  issues  and  evidence,  even  though  the  form  of  the  verdict  be 
departed  from,"  the  parties  being  given  the  relief  which  they 
are  in  law  entitled  to.^  Of  course  unless  the  parties  are  shown 
to  have  some  definite  interest  in  the  premises  or  liability,  a 
judgment  against  them  can  be  of  no  avail.'*  If  under  the  law 
two  are  liable,  it  is  erroneous  to  enter  it  against  one.^**  Unless 
the  law  specially  so  provides,  the  court  will  not  decree  a  spe- 
cific performance  of  an  agreement  to  convey  property  to  sat- 
isfy the  lien.i^ 

§  274.  Order  of  sale — Priorities  and  distribution. — It  is  a 
very  common  thing  in  the  order  of  sale  to  make  a  finding  as 
to  priority  and  distribution  of  proceeds.  The  priority  of  the 
claims  have  been  discussed  in  previous  chapters  and  the  rules 
there  laid  down  govern  as  to  the  priorities  of  claims.^  As  a 
matter  of  course  there  cannot  be  a  valid  order  of  sale  of  the 


4  Pacific  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Fisher,  106  Cal.  224,  39  Pac.  758. 

5  Santa  Monica  Lumber  &  Mill 
Co.  V.  Hege  (Cal.),  48  Pac.  69; 
Briggs  V.  Bruce,  9  Colo.  282,  11 
Pac.  204;  Lutz  v.  Ey,  3  E.  D. 
Smith   (N.  Y.)    621. 

6  Maurer  v.  Bliss,  6  N.  Y.  St. 
224;  Hill  V.  Milligan,  38  Pa.  St. 
237. 

7  Sharkey  v.  Miller,  69  111.  560. 

8  Chicago,  &c.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moran, 
187   111.   316,   58   N.  E.   335. 

9  Keller  v.  Carterville  Bldg.  & 
Loan  Assn.,  71  Mo.  App.  465. 

10  Culver  v.  Elwell,  73  111.  536; 
Building  &  Planing  Mill  Co.  v. 
Huber,  42  Mo.  App.  432. 

11  "No  power  is  given  to  decree 


the  performance  of  any  other 
act;  or  process  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  any  such  decree.  It  is 
true  that  a  lien  may  be  filed,  and 
the  same  enforced,  where  judg- 
ment is  to  be  paid  otherwise 
than  in  money.  (Phillips  on  Me- 
chanics' Lien,  129).  But,  in  such 
cases,  the  court  must  determine 
the  amount  that  is  to  be  paid  in 
money,  and  then  proceed  in  the 
same  manner  as  though  such 
amount  had  been  required  to  be 
so  paid  by  the  contract.  In  the 
present  case,  the  defendant 
agreed  to  convey  to  the  plaintiff 
a  specific  lot.  But  the  plaintiff 
has  made  no  demand  of  the  deed, 
or    shown    any    inability    of    the 


274] 


ENFORCEMENT    OF   LIEN. 


650 


property  over  which  the  court  has  no  jurisdiction,^  nor  can  it 
order  a  part  of  the  premises  sold  when  damage  would  result 
to  the  remainder. 3  The  court  cannot,  unless  all  interested  par- 
ties consent,  order  a  partition  of  the  premises  among  claim- 
ants."* But  a  part  may  be  ordered  first  sold,  if  so  requested  by 
the  defendant,  if  it  is  manifest  that  the  part  desired  to  be  sold 
is  sufficient  to  cover  the  claim.  Neither  can  property  be  or- 
dered sold  on  payments  other  than  is  required  by  law,^  nor  can 
an  order  for  sale  be  made  of  a  greater  interest  than  is  subject 
to  a  lien.*^  But  there  might  be  instances  where  if  justice  was 
subserved,  the  entire  property  might  be  sold,  even  if  others 
had  an  interest  therein.'  As  a  general  rule,  where  there  are 
different  claims  or  different  priorities,^  the  court  should  find 


defendant  to  make  the  convey- 
ance. Dowdney  v.  McCullom,  59 
N.  Y.  367. 

1  See  §§  144-164. 

2  Bassick  Min.  Co.  v.  School- 
field,   10   Colo.   46,   14   Pac.    65. 

3  North  Presbyterian  Church  v. 
Jevne,  32  111.  214,  S3  Am.  Dec. 
261. 

•i  Smith  V.  Corey,  3  E.  D.  Smith 
(N.  Y.)  642.  4  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
208.  Sale,  not  partition,  of  the 
premises,  is  required.  Brown  v. 
Jones,  52  Minn.  484,  55  N.  W.  54. 

5  Where  the  amount  of  th'^  debt 
is  but  a  small  proportion  of  the 
value  of  the  whole  property  cov- 
ered by  the  lien,  it  is  proper  to 
decree  a  sale  for  cash  payment 
sufficient  to  pay  the  debt.  Lester 
V.  Pedigo,  84  Va.  309,  4  S.  E.  703. 

G  Schmidt  v.  Gilson,  14  Wis. 
514.  A  judgment  under  the  lien 
law,  directing  a  sale  of  the  prem- 
ises on  which  the  building  is 
situated,  is  bad,  as  only  the  build- 


er's interest  can  be  sold  by  stat- 
ute.    Dewey  v.  Fifield,  2  Wis.  73. 

"  In  proceedings  to  enforce  a 
mechanic's  lien,  the  court  gener- 
ally may,  if  it  sees  proper,  direct 
the  sale  of  the  estate  of  all  part- 
ies having  an  interest  in  the 
premises;  but  it  is  not  obliged 
to  do  so,  and  the  better  practice 
is  not  to  do  so,  if  the  objects 
of  the  statute  can  be  obtained  by 
decreeing  a  sale  of  the  interest 
of  those  parties  only,  against 
whose  interest  the  lien  equitably 
attaches.  Kidder  v.  Aholtz,  36 
111.    478. 

8  Where  a  cross  bill  by  a  party 
to  a  suit  to  enforce  a  mechanic's 
lien  asks  the  sale  of  the  property 
to  pay  a  mortgage  held  by  him, 
the  court  will  determine  the  pri- 
ority of  the  liens  upon  the  prop- 
erty, and  decree  their  payment  in 
the  proper  order.  Interstate 
Bldg.  &  Loan  Assn.  v.  Ayres,  71 
111.  App.   529. 


651 


ORDER  OF  SALE. 


[§274 


the  amount  due  each  and  the  order  of  its  priority.^  If  the 
claims  upon  the  building  can  be  separated  from  the  liens  upon 
the  land,  where  the  law  recognizes  that  the  lien  may  be  on  the 
building  separate  from  the  land,io  the  order  should  find  the 
priorities  of  each,  and  the  value  of  the  property  subject  to 
each,  and  direct  distribution  according  to  their  respective 
rights. ^^  These  matters  must  be  done  strictly  as  the  law  pro- 
vides.^2  And  if  the  order  of  sale  does  not  determine  the  dis- 
tribution of  proceeds,  this  can  be  done  at  a  future  time.^^  The 
order  should  provide  for  the  sale  of  the  property,  and  if  it 
states  that  it  was  to  be  done  as  under  execution  it  will  not 


aCroskey  v.  Corey,  48  111.  442; 
Ogle  V.  Murray,  3  111.  App.  343; 
Hughes  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Con- 
yers,  97  Tenn.  274,  36  S.  W.  1093; 
laege  v.  Bossieux,  15  Gratt.  (Va.) 
83,  76  Am.  Dec.  189.  » 

10  Leach  v.  Minick,  106  Iowa 
437,  76  N.  W.  751. 

11  Illiuois. — Grundeis  v.  Hart- 
well,  90  111.  324;  Lunt  v.  Ste- 
phens, 75  111.  507;  Tracy  v. 
Rogers,  69  111.  662;  North  Pres- 
byterian Church  V.  Jevne,  32  III. 
214,  S3  Am.  Dec.  261. 

loTt'a. — Eagle  Iron  Works  v. 
Des  Moines  Suburban  R.  Co.,  101 
Iowa  289,  70  N.  W.  193;  Brodt  v. 
Rohkar,  48  Iowa  36. 

Missouri. — Bruce  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Hoos,67  Mo.  App.  264. 

Under  Miller's  Code,  577,  pro- 
viding that,  "if  material  was  fur- 
nished in  the  erection  of  an  orig- 
inal and  independent  building, 
commenced  since  the  execution  of 
such  prior  mortgage,  the  court 
may,  in  its  discretion,  order  and 
direct  such  building  to  be  sepa- 
rately sold  under  execution,"  the 


burden  is  on  the  lienor  to  show 
that  the  separate  sale  of  the 
building  would  be  proper  under 
all  the  circumstances;  and  a  de- 
cree of  the  trial  court  in  such  a 
case,  giving  priority  to  the  mort- 
gage will  not  be  set  aside,  where 
the  building  is  a  fixture,  and  all 
that  is  made  to  appear  is  that 
the  land  is  not  sufficient  to  pay 
the  mortgage.  Miller  v.  Seal,  71 
Iowa  392,  32  N.  W.  391.  Code 
Civ.  Proc,  3403,  relative  to  the 
foreclosure  of  mechanics'  liens, 
provides  that  the  court  may  ad- 
just and  determine  the  equities 
of  all  parties  and  the  oi-der  of 
different  liens,  and  determine  all 
issues  raised  by  defense  or  coun- 
terclaim. Schultze  V.  Goodstein, 
82  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  316,  81  N. 
Y.   Supp.   946. 

12  Bayard  v.  McGraw,  1  111. 
App.  134;  Kennedy  v.  McKone, 
10  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  88,  41  N.  Y. 
Supp.   782. 

13  Kelley  v.  Chapman,  13  111. 
530,  56  Am.  Dec.  474. 


274] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF  LIEN. 


652 


be  erroneous. ^^  But  there  must  be  some  order  for  sale  of  the 
property/^  in  compliance  with  the  statute. ^^  It  will  not  be 
erroneous  to  direct  the  order  to  the  sheriff,  when  it  should  have 
been  to  a  master/"  or  to  direct  the  sale  of  the  fee,  even  tnough 
there  be  a  mortgage  on  the  property,^^  or  to  give  the  purchaser 
immediate  possession. ^^  If  the  statute  provides  the  length  of 
time  which  shall  elapse  between  the  order  of  sale  and  the  time 
the  sale  is  made,  it  must  be  followed.^"^  If  there  is  no  such  stat- 
utory provision  it  is  within  the  discretion  of  the  court,^!  but, 
at  least,  in  some  courts,  it  is  held  that  a  reasonable  time  must 
be  allowed.22 

§  275.     Order  of  sale — Interest  on  claim — Effect  of  order. — 

The  right  to  interest  on  the  claim  has  been  heretofore  consid- 
ered.^ If  the  date  of  the  payment  is  fixed  by  contract  it  prop- 
erly dates  from  that  time ;-  if  not  so  fixed,  from  the  commence- 
ment of  the  action,^  to  the  time  of  judgment,  and  then  to  the 


14  Meehan  v.  Williams,  36 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  73,  2  Daly.  (N. 
Y.)    367. 

15  Riggs  V.  Stewart,  14  N.  Y. 
Civ.   Proc.   141,  14  N.   Y.   St.   695. 

ic  McCormack  v.  Phillips,  4 
Dak.  506,  34  N.  W.  39. 

If  Kelley  v.  Chapman,  13  111. 
530,  56  Am.  Dec.  474. 

IS  Croskey  v.  Northwestern 
Mfg.  Co.,  48  111.  481. 

19  Luce  V.  Curtis,  77  Iowa  347, 
42   N.   W.   313. 

20  Freibroth  v.  Mann,  70  111. 
523;    Kinzey    v.    Thomas,    28    111. 


502; 
497. 


Claycomb    v.    Cecil,    27    111. 


21  Clear  Creek  Gold  &  Silver 
Min.  Co.  V.  Root,  1  Colo.  374. 

22  Bush  V.  Connelly,  33  111.  447; 
Rowley  v.  James,  31  111.  298; 
Moore  v.   Bracken,     27     111.     22; 


Six  months  months  not  unreason- 
able. Strawn  v.  Cogswell,  28  111. 
457.  Not  less  than  execution. 
James  v.  Hambleton,  42  111.  308. 
Not  less  than  90  days.  Link  v. 
Architectural  Iron  Works,  24  111. 
551;  Mills  v.  Heeney,  35  111.  173. 

1  Right  to  interest,  see  §  126. 

2  Watkins  v.  Wassell,  20  Ark. 
410. 

■i  Pacific  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Fisher,  106  Cal.  224,  39  Pac.  758; 
Casey  v.  Weaver,  141  Mass.  280, 
6  N.  E.  372;  Laycock  v.  Parker, 
103  Wis.  161,  79  N.  W.  327.  Some- 
times rests  in  the  discretion  of 
the  chancellor.  Kaye  v.  Bank,  39 
Ky.  261.  Interest  should  be  al- 
lowed on  a  mechanic's  lien  from 
the  date  of  the  filing  of  the  claim 
for  record.  Hensel  v.  Johnson, 
94  Md.  729,  51  Atl.  575. 


653 


PRIORITY INTEREST. 


[§275 


time  of  satisfaction.'*  The  claims  of  subcontractors  should  be 
calculated  in  the  same  way.^  But  interest  should  not  be  al- 
lowed prior  to  the  time  prayed  for.*^  A  decree  of  sale  itself 
is  not  effective ;  there  must  be  a  sale  and  confirmation  to  di- 
vest the  owner  of  title."  Where  suit  is  brought  to  quiet  title 
by  the  purchaser,  the  burden  is  on  him  to  show  that  the  sale 
was  properly  made.^  Persons  who  are  interested,^  but  not 
made  parties,  may  go  behind  the  foreclosure  proceedings  and 
contest  the  validity  of  the  lien  and  all  proceedings  relating 
thereto. ^*^  Mortgagees,^ ^  and  assignees,  becoming  such  prior 
to  the  filing  of  the  complaint,  are  not  affected  unless  made  par- 
ties.^-     But  generally  a  senior  lienholder  may  foreclose  his 


-i  Johnson  v.  Boudry,  116  Mass. 
196. 

5  McDonald  v.  Patterson  &  Co., 
84  111.  App.  326.  Where  the  value 
of  the  work  done  by  a  subcon- 
tractor under  his  contract  with 
the  principal  contractor  was  un- 
liquidated and  incapable  of  as- 
certainment until  fixed  by  judg- 
ment of  the  court,  the  court,  in 
an  action  by  such  subcontractor 
to  foreclose  a  mechanic's  lifen,  is 
unauthorized  to  allow  interest  on 
his  claim  prior  to  judgment.  Ma- 
comber  v.  Bigelow,  126  Cal.  9, 
58   Pac.   312. 

6  Huetter  v.  Redhead,  31  Wash. 
320,  71  Pac.  1016. 

"t  Merchants'  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mazan- 
ge,  22  Ala.  168. 

J^  Krotz  V.  A.  R.  Beck  Lumber 
Co.,  34  Ind.  App.  577,  73  N.  B. 
273. 

9  Sufficient  to  put  on  inquiry. — 
The  facts  that  a  married  woman 
was  possessed  of  land,  the  legal 
title  to  which  was  in  another, 
when  complainants  were  con- 
tracting with  her  to  furnish  ma- 


terials, when  they  were  fur- 
nished, and  when  suits  were 
commenced  and  that  her  name 
was  signed  to  a  recorded  plat 
of  the  land,  were  sufficient  to 
put  them  on  inquiry  as  to  her 
equitable  interest  in  the  land,  on 
the  institution  of  suits  to  fore- 
close the  mechanic's  lien;  and, 
she  not  having  been  made  a 
party,  her  interest  was  not  af- 
fected   by    the   decree.     Krotz   v. 

A.  R.  Beck  Lumber  Co.,  34  Ind. 
App.   577,   73   N.   E.   273. 

10  Krotz  v.  A.  R.  Beck  Lumber 
Co.,  34  Ind.  App.  577,  73  N.  B. 
273;  Portsmouth  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Riley,  54  Neb.  531,  74  N.  W.  838. 

11  General  Fire  Extinguisher 
Co.  v.  Lundell,  66  111.  App.  140; 
Husted  v.  National  Home  Bldg.  & 
Loan    Assn.,    152    Ind.    698,    51    N. 

B.  1067;  Union  Nat.  Savings  & 
Loan  Assn.  v.  Helberg,  152  Ind. 
139,   51   N.    E.    916. 

12  Burnham  v.  Raymond,  64 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  596,  72  N.  Y. 
Supp.   300. 


§275] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


654 


lien  without  making  junior  incumbrancers  parties/^  unless 
otherwise  provided  by  statute. ^^  The  decree  and  order  of  sale 
will  operate  upon  all  the  interest  the  party  defendant  may 
have  in  the  premises. ^^  If  he  does  not  own  the  fee  an  order 
made  to  sell  the  building  will  be  a  sufficient  holding  that  the 
building  is  personal  property. ^^  The  finding  on  the  evidence 
and  dismissal  will  be  held  to  be  a  finding  on  the  merits  and  not 
merely  a  nonsuit. ^'^  Whoever  purchases  property  pending  a 
suit  steps  into  the  rights  and  liabilities  of  a  grantor  no  matter 
what  the  finding  may  be.^^  And  if  the  case  be  reversed  on  ap- 
peal, the  parties  are  in  the  same  position  as  they  were  before. ^^ 
Notwithstanding  what  the  order  may  say,  it  cannot  operate 
otherwise  than  as  provided  by  law,^'^  even  as  against  the  party 
lawfully  liable.2i 

^  276.  Order  of  sale — Parties  affected — Judgment  against — 
Setting  same  aside — Collateral  attack. — It  should  not  be  for- 
gotten that  the  decree  or  order  of  sale  only  binds  those  who 


13  Deming-Colborn  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Union  Nat.  Sav.  &  Loan  Assn., 
151  Ind.  463,  51  N.  E.  936. 

1-1  Union  Nat.  Savings  &  Loan 
Assn.  V.  Helberg,  152  Ind.  139,  51 
N.  E.  916.  Plaintiff  must  proceed 
as  statute  provides.  Only  had 
right  to  redeem.  Deming-Col- 
born Lumber  Co.  v.  Union  Nat. 
Sav.  &  Loan  Assn.,  151  Ind.  463- 
51  N.  E.  936. 

15  Dobschuetz  v.  Holliday,  82 
111.   371. 

16  Shull  v.  Best  (Neb.),  93  N. 
W.    753. 

17  Doll  v.  Coogan,  168  N.  Y. 
656,  61  N.  E.   1129. 

18  Anglo-American  Savings  & 
Loan  Assn.  v.  Campbell,  13  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  581,  43  Am.  Dec.  622. 

10  Badger       Lumber       Co.       v. 


Holmes,  55  Neb.  473,  76  N.  W. 
174. 

-"  Bitter  v.  Mouat  Lumber  & 
Inv.  Co.,  10  Colo.  App.  307,  51 
Pac.  519;  Cutter  v.  Kline,  35  N. 
J.   Eq.   534. 

21H0II  V.  Long,  34  Misc.  (N. 
Y.)  1,  68  N.  Y.  Supp.  522.  Where 
several  suits  to  enforce  liens 
were  consolidated,  and  one 
plaintiff  was  non-suited  as  to  the 
defendant  owners  only,  it  was  not 
error  to  render  judgment  that, 
as  against  the  owners,  such 
plaintiffs  should  take  nothing, 
and  pay  costs;  since,  after  the 
non-suit,  he  remained  a  party  as 
against  the  other  claimants,  and 
they  were  entitled  to  have  his 
claim  to  a  portion  of  the  contract 
price    reliminated.      Kennedy,    &c., 


655  JUDGMENT COLLATERAL  ATTACK.  [§276 

are  parties  to  the  suit,^  and  as  persons  purchasing  the  prop- 
erty pending  the  suit,  take  subject  to  the  then  existing  rights, 
their  interest  may  also  be  affected,  although  not  made  parties 
to  the  action. 2  The  same  is  true  in  case  of  a  person  taking  a 
mortgage  or  other  lien  ;  their  right  of  action  may  not  be  lost, 
but  their  security  may  be  taken  away.^  The  party  acquiring 
an  interest,  either  as  purchaser,  mortgagee  or  lienor  before  the 
suit  is  commenced  may  have  a  standing  to  set  aside  a  fraudu- 
lent judgment  on  the  lien.'*  If  the  statute  should  require 
that  all  lienholders  be  made  parties  and  they  are  made  such, 
they  will  be  bound  whether  or  not  they  file  answers.^  As 
a  general  rule,  if  a  lien  right  is  defeated  personal  judgment 
may  be  rendered.*^  The  proceedings  may  be  arrested  by 
motion,  but  a  motion  to  arrest  a  judgment,  as  a  general  rule, 
must  be  grounded  on  some  object  arising  on  the  face  of  the 
record  itself;  and  no  defect  at  the  trial  can  be  held  under 
this  motion,  and  the  finding  will  not  be  disturbed  if  by  any 
fair  construction  of  its  terms,  it  can  be  sustained.'^  As  a 
general  rule,  amendments  to  findings,  orders  of  sale  and 
motions  to  set  aside  are  allowed,  if  made  in  the  interest  of 
justice,^   and  if  not  prejudicial  to  a  person,  it  may  be   done 

Lumber  Co.  v.  Dusenbery,  116  Fairfield,  134  Cal.  220,  66  Pac. 
Cal.  124,  47  Pac.  1008.  255;   Villaume  v.   Kirchner,  85  N. 

1  Whitney    v.    Higgins,    10    Cal.      Y.    Supp.    377. 

547,   70   Am.   Dec.   748;    M'Kim  v.  "  On  motion  in  arrest  of  judg- 

Mason,    3    Md.    Ch.    186;    Holl    v.  ment    on    the    ground    that    the 

Long,   34    Misc.    (N.   Y.)    1,   68   N.  larger  portion  of  the  lumber  for 

Y.   Supp.   522.     See  previous   sec-  which    the    lien    is    claimed    was 

tion.  furnished   more   than   six  months 

2  Whitney    v.    Higgins,    10    Cal.  before   the   lien  was  filed,  it  will 
547,  70  Am.  Dec.  748.  be  presumed  that  the  lumber  was 

3  Pittman   v.   Wakefield,   90   Ky.  all    furnished    under   one    general 
171,  13  S.  W.  525.  contract  in  which  case  if  any  of 

■1  Gamble  v.  Voll,  15  Cal.  507.  it   was   within  the   time,  the   lien 

5  Hardwick  v.  Royal  Pood   Co.,  would    cover    the    whole.     Fergu- 

78  Hun  (N.  Y.)  52,  28  N.  Y.  Supp.  son  v.  Vollum,  1  Phila.   (Pa.)  181. 

1086.  8  Hubon   v.   Bousley,   123    Mass. 

c  San     Francisco     Pav.    Co.    v.  368. 


§276] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


656 


without  notice  to  him.'*  Such  action,  however,  is  largely  con- 
trolled by  the  statutes  of  the  state  in  which  the  action  is 
brought. ^'^  A  judgment  in  foreclosure  of  a  mechanic's  lien  can- 
not be  attacked  collaterally,  except  by  showing  want  of  juris- 
diction in  the  court  which  has  rendered  it.^^ 

§  277.  Matters  relating  to  enforcement — Writ  of  execution 
for  order  of  sale. — In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  writ  of 
execution,  where  that  is  the  method  of  procedure,^  or  order 
of  sale,  should  set  forth  the  description  of  the  premises  and 
amount  of  the  lien,-  and  as  a  general  rule  there  may  be  no 
execution  awarded  for  the  balance  due,  until  after  a  sale  has 
been  had  of  the  property  directly  subject  to  the  lien.^  In 
some  cases,  however,  it  has  been  held  that  the  decree  might  be 
abandoned     and     execution     as     on     an     ordinary    judgment 


0  McClellan  v.  Brinkley,  78  Ind. 
503.  A  prior  mortgagee,  who  has 
not  been  in  any  way  misled  by 
the  mistake,  cannot  take  any  ad- 
vantage thereof.  Monroe  v.  West, 
12    Iowa    119,    79    Am.    Dec.    524. 

10  Mason  v.  Heyward,  5  Minn. 
74;  Raven  v.  Smith,  76  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  60,  27  N.  Y.  Supp.  611;  Lamp- 
son  V.  Bowen.  41  Wis.  484;  Hill  v. 
La  Crosse,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  11  Wis. 
214. 

iiNolt  V.  Crow,  22  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  113;  Allen  v.  Sales,  56  Mo.  28. 
Some  attempt  appears  to  have 
been  made  at  the  trial  to  attack 
the  judgment  referred  to,  on  the 
ground  that  the  cooking  range 
was  not  a  fixture;  it  was  clearly 
incompetent  to  do  this.  After 
rendition  of  judgment  by  a  court 
of  competent  jurisdiction  all  the 
issues  of  fact  raised  by  the  plead- 
ing are   forever   settled.     So   tha: 


it  was  entirely  immaterial  wheth- 
er the  cooking  range  was  attach- 
ed to  the  freehold  or  not.  The 
court  on  issue  joined  so  found, 
and  that  was  sufficient.  Nor  was 
it  at  all  material  that  the  house 
was  four  or  five  years  old  at  the 
time  the  work,  which  riesulted  In 
the  lien,  was  done.  Reilly  v. 
Hudson,    62   Mo.    383. 

1  Snow  V.  Council,  65  Ga.  123. 
See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechan- 
ics' Liens,  §  292. 

-'  Decker  v.  O'Brien,  159  N.  Y. 
553,  54  X.  E.  1090  (without  opin- 
ion). Affg.  1  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  81, 
36   N.  Y.   Supp.   1079. 

■i  Stone  V.  Tyler,  173  111.  147, 
50  N.  E.  688 ;  First  Baptist  Church 
V.  Andrews,  87  111.  172.  As  to 
what  is  a  final  decree  in  such 
cases.  [McCarthy  v.  Holtman,  19 
App.    Cas.    (D.    C.)    150. 


657 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   SALE. 


[§277 


awarded.'*  There  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why  this  rule 
should  not  be  general.  The  purpose  of  an  execution  or  order 
of  sale  is  to  carry  into  effect  the  order  of  court  and  realize 
sufficient  moneys  to  pay  the  lien  claimants,^  and  the  sale 
might  be  valid  if  no  formal  order  of  sale  or  writ  of  execution 
was  issued.*'  The  entire  matter,  however,  is  largely  con- 
trolled by  statutory  provisions  of  the  forum  in  which  the 
action  is  pending.'^  The  property  must  be  owned  by  the 
defendant  at  the  time  the  lien  attaches  or  it  is  not  liable.^  An 
equitable  interest,  however,  may  be  proceeded  against,  even 
before  the  extent  of  such  interest  is  judicially  ascertained.*^  If 
there  is  a  lien  against  the  interest  of  a  tenant,  and  the  claim- 
ant suffers  the  lease  to  expire  before  the  writ  is  issued,  the 
property  is  not  liable. ^*^  The  owner  may  insist  on  his  non- 
exempt  property  being  first  subjected  to  the  lien,^^  and  in 
proper  cases  a  receiver  may  be  appointed  for  the  benefit  of  the 
lienor.^2  "Yhe  premises  described  in  the  writ  should  conform 
to  that  described  in  the  complaint.^^  and  the  judgment  ren- 
dered thereon.^-*     Resort  cannot  be  had  to  external  proof  upon 


4  Richardson  v.  Warwick,  7 
How.    (Miss.)    131. 

5  Throckmorton  v.  Shelton,  68 
Conn.  413,  36  Atl.  805;  American 
Savings  &  Loan  Assn.  v.  Camp- 
bell, 8  S.  Dak.  170,  65  N.  W.  815. 

<>  Jarrett  v.  Hoover,  54  Neb.  65, 
74   N.   W.   429. 

1'  Kendall  v.  McFarland,  4  Ore. 
292;  Schmidt  v.  Stetler,  21  Pittsb. 
Leg.  J.  (Pa.)  34,  2  Luz.  Leg.  Reg. 
(Pa.)  192;  Bailey  v.  Hull,  11  Wis. 
289,    78   Am.   Dec.    706. 

8  Milan  v.  Bruffee,  6  Mo.  635; 
Mutual  Ben.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Rowand,  26  N.  .J.  Eq.  389.  When 
seized  on  writ,  needs  no  further 
order.  Laughlin  v.  Reed,  89  Me. 
226,  36  Atl.  131. 

9  Carey  Lombard  Lumber  Co.  v. 


Bierbauer,    76    Minn.    434,    79    N. 
W.    541. 

10  Stetson,  &c.,  Mill  Co.  v.  Pa- 
cific Amusement  Co.,  37  Wash. 
335,   79    Pac.   935. 

11  See  Homesteads,  §  142.  King 
V.  Hapgood  Shoe  Co.,  21  Tex. 
Civ.  App.   217,  51  S.  W.   532. 

12  Stone  V.  Tyler,  67  111.  App. 
17. 

I'i  Nordyke-Marmon  Co.  v.  Dick- 
son, 76  Ind.  188. 

1^  Wilson  V.  Renter,  29  Iowa 
176;  Schwartz  v.  Salter,  40  La. 
Ann.  264,  4  So.  77.  A  sale  on  ex- 
ecution of  a  house  on  B.  Street, 
under  a  judgment  on  a  mechan- 
ic's lien  claim  filed  against  a 
house  on  A.  Street,  is  void. 
Simpson  v.  Murray,  2  Pa.  St.  76. 


42 


§  278] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


658 


this  subject. ^^  In  a  proper  case,  the  writ  will  be  set  aside, 
but  it  will  not  be  done  unless  it  is  definitely  shown  that  the 
executive  officer  has  failed  to  comply  with  the  law  in  seeking 
to  execute  the  same.^''^  The  matter  of  stay  is  only  granted 
when  the  statute  so  provides, ^'^  and  is  entirely  regulated  by 
the  statute  granting  the  same.^^  There  can  be  no  writ  is- 
sued for  the  sale  of  the  materials.  It  must  be  shown  the 
materials  were  used  in  connection  with  the  erection  of  the 
building, 1^  under  proper  contract,  and  with  proper  description 
of  the  premises. 

§  278.  Sale  in  general. — The  sale  is  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
verting the  property  upon  which  the  lien  has  been  found  "to 
exist  into  money  so  that  the  same  may  be  applied  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  demand.  This  method  is  the  only  way  to 
enforce  a  compulsory  payment  of  the  debt.  If  a  personal 
judgment  is  rendered  on  the  debt,  then  the  mode  provided  for 
the  collection  of  judgments  of  that  character  will  control. 
The  manner  of  the  sale  is  regulated  by  statutes  of  the  various 
states,  and  the  sale  cannot  be  objected  to  by  one  not  in- 
juriously aft'ected  thereby.^  An  objection  on  the  ground  of 
irregularity  by  one  entitled  to  object  must  be  made  as  a  gen- 
eral  rule   before    confirmation.^     And    generally    where    the 


15  Race  V.  Sullivan,  1  111.  App. 
94. 

i«  Fink  V.  Remick,  33  Mo.  App. 
624. 

1"  Arrington  v.  "Wittenberg,  11 
Nev.   285. 

18  Paine  v.  Putnam,  10  Neb. 
588,  7  N.  W.  336. 

19  Lee  V.  King,  99  Ala.  246,  13 
So.   506. 

1  Knapp  V.  Greenwood,  83  Iowa 
1,  48  N.  W.  1055;  Pittman  v. 
Wakefield,  90  Ky.  171,  13  S.  W. 
525;  Fink  v.  Remick,  33  Mo.  App. 
624.     Where  a  junior  lien  has  not 


been  cut  off  by  a  sale  under  a 
prior  lien,  the  holder  of  the  for- 
mer cannot  bring  a  bill  to  set 
aside  the  sale,  as  the  intervention 
of  equity  is  needless.  Inglehart 
v.  Thousand  Island  Hotel  Co.,  109 
N.  Y.  454,  17  N.  E.  358;  Carney 
V.  La  Crosse,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  15  Wis. 
558,  82  Am.  Dec.  698.  See  Dec. 
&  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics'  Liens, 
§293. 

2  Harbach  v.  Kurth,  131  Pa.  St. 
177,  18  Atl.  1062,  25  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)  301.  After  judgment,  exe- 
cution, and  sale  under  a  mechan- 


659  SALE INCUMBRANCES.  [§  279 

claimant  has  both  a  personal  judgment  and  a  decree  of  fore- 
closure, the  property  on  which  the  lien  exists  should  be  sold 
before  other  property  of  the  defendant.^  Only  such  prop- 
erty as  is  subject  to  the  lien  can  be  sold.  However,  if  the 
work  is  performed  upon  an  entire  plant  and  it  cannot  be 
separated  without  manifest  injury,  it  is  within  the  power 
of  a  court  of  equity  to  order  the  entire  plant  sold,  and  it  will 
usually  do  so.'*  Where  the  lien  is  on  a  number  of  properties 
as  an  entirety,  they  can  be  separately  sold,  and  in  such  case 
not  more  should  be  sold  than  will  cover  the  lien  claim  and 
costs. ^  After  the  lien  has  attached,  the  surrender  of  a  lease- 
hold interest  will  not  defeat  the  sale.^ 

§  279.  Sale — Other  incumbrances — In  the  absence  of  con- 
trary statutory  provisions  the  property  is  generally  sold  free 
from  all  subsequent  liens,  but  it  will  not  be  sold  so  as  to  afifect 
a  prior  incumbrancer  unless  he  comes  in  and  consents  to  be  a 
party.'^  If  the  lien  is  on  part  of  the  property,  as  for  instance 
the  building,  and  the  incumbrances  on  the  land,  and  a  sale  of 
the  different  interests  separately  would  not  be  to  the  best 
interest  of  all  concerned,  the  incumbrancer  should  become  a 
party  and  then   the   proceeds  may  be  equitably  distributed.^ 

ic's   lien,  it  is   too  late  to  object  s  Georgria. — Winn  v.  Henderson, 

that  the  lien,   which  was  on  two  63  Ga.  365. 

separate  houses,  failed  to  appor-  loTva. — Luce  v.  Curtis,  77  Iowa 

tion     the    claim     between     them.  347,    42    N.    W.    313. 

Reece    v.    Haymaker,    25    Pittsb.  Louisiana. — Cordeviolle  v.  Hos- 

Leg.  J.   (N.  S.)    (Pa.)   74.  mer,    16    La.    590;    McDonough   v. 

-  Marks  v.  Pence,  31  Wash.  426,  Le  Roy,  1  Rob.   (La.)   173. 

71  Pac.  1096.  New     Jersey.  —  Newark     Lime, 

4  National     Foundry     &       Pipe  &c.  Co.  v.  Morrison,  13  N.  J.  Eq. 

Works    V.    Oconto    Water    Co.,    52  133. 

Fed.  43.  Texas. — Kahler    v.     Carruthers, 

•"•  Major  V.  Collins,  11   111.   App.  18   Tex.   Civ.   App.   216,   45   S.   W. 

658.      Same   as    in   foreclosure    of  160;    Owens   v.   Heidbreder    (Tex. 

mortgage.     Gauhn  v.  Mills,  2  Abb.  Civ.   App.)    44    S.    W.    1079;    June 

N.  Cas.   (N.  Y.)   114.  v.  Doke,   35   Tex.  Civ.   App.      240, 

0  Tracy   v.    Rogers,    69    111.    662.  80  S.  W.  402. 

J  Smith  V.  Shaffer,  46  Md.   573.  Where,    in    a    mechanic's    lien 


280] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


660 


This  rule  may  also  be  followed  where  there  is  doubt  as  to  the 
priority  of  the  various  liens.^  Generally  where  property  is 
separately  sold  it  should  be  separately  appraised. ^"^  Some 
statutes  require  that  the  property  be  sold  free  from  liens.  In 
such  cases  if  a  prior  incumbrancer  is  made  a  party  he  cannot 
object  to  the  sale.^^ 

§  280.  Sale — Conduct  and  validity. — As  the  lien  is  purely 
statutory,  in  order  for  a  sale  to  be  valid  and  a  good  title  pass 
to  the  purchaser,  it  must  be  shown  that  all  the  provisions 
of  the  statute  have  been  complied  with.^  If  the  parties  inter- 
ested stipulate  as  to  terms  of  sale,^  or  the  amount  for  which 
it  is  to  be  sold,  this  will  be  binding  on  those  consenting,  even 
though  not  in  strict  accordance  with  the  statute.  Whether 
or  not  the  sale  has  been  properly  conducted  may  be  estab- 
lished by  evidence.^  And  if  the  name  of  the  defendant  is 
disputed,  it  may  be  shown  that  that  is  the  name  he  usually 
is  known   by.^     The  sale  is  invalidated   where   a   number  of 


foreclosure,  it  appears  that  the 
liens  can  only  be  satisfied  by  a 
sale  of  the  property,  mortgagees 
who  have  been  made  parties  can- 
not object  that  they  are  not  seek- 
ing foreclosure,  and  should  not 
be  compelled  to  accept  the  re- 
sults thereof.  Joralmon  v.  Mc- 
Phee,  31  Colo.  26,  71   Pac.  419. 

9  This  power  may  be  exercised 
so  long  as  the  subject  matter 
and  the  parties  remain  before 
the  court,  and  under  its  jurisdic- 
tion, as  well  after  a  sale  of  suffi- 
cient to  satisfy  the  primary  lien 
as  before.  Livingston  v.  Mil- 
drum,  19  N.  Y.  440. 

10  Citizens'  Bank  v.  Maureau, 
37  La.  Ann.  857.  Succession  of 
Cox,  32  La.  Ann.  1035;  Wang  v. 
Field,  26  La.  Ann.  349;  White- 
neck  V.  Noe,  11  N.  J.  Eq.  321. 


11  Reed  v.  Estes,  113  Tenn. 
200.  SO  S.  W.  1086.  Even  though 
the  decree  makes  no  reference 
to  the  mortgage  and  is  silent  as 
to  the  proceeds  of  the  sale.  The 
right  of  the  mortgagee  is  remit- 
ted to  the  fund  resulting  from 
the  sale.  Topping  v.  Brown,  63 
111.    348. 

1  Statutory  provisions  cannot 
be  extended  in  their  operation 
beyond  the  plain  and  fair  sense 
of  the  terms  in  which  they  are 
expressed.  Wagar  v.  Briscoe,  38 
Mich.  587.  Not  a  critical  con- 
struction however.  Neher  v. 
Crawford,  10  N.  Mex.  725,  65  Pac. 
156. 

2  Pairo   V.    Bethell,    75   Va.    825. 

3  Staples  V.  Ryan,  62  Fed.   635. 
■i  Fanning    v.    Krapfl,    68    Iowa 

244,   26   N.   W.  133. 


661  CONFORMATION   OF   SALE.  [§281 

prospective  purchasers  combine  to  prevent  competition  in 
bidding.  But  the  lienholders  may  agree  that  one  of  their  num- 
ber shall  bid  in  the  property  for  the  benefit  of  all,  and  this 
will  not  be  held  to  constitute  such  fraudulent  action  as  will 
invalidate  the  sale.^  The  court  has  power  to  order  the  sale 
only  in  the  method  provided  by  law.^  Upon  defendant's  de- 
mand, the  court  may  order  a  part  of  the  premises  to  be  sold, 
if  that  will  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  lienJ  The  court  may 
order  the  performance  of  all  incidental  matters  necessary  to  the 
sale  as  contemplated  by  the  statute,  and  where  the  funds  re- 
main on  hands  for  some  time  it  may  order  the  payment  of 
taxes.^  The  time  of  sale  is  regulated  by  statute  and  must 
be  complied  with,  unless  all  interested  parties  consent  to  a 
sale  at  another  time.''  The  efifect  of  a  sale,  properly  made,  is 
to  transfer  all  the  rights  of  the  parties  to  the  suit  in  the 
property  to  the  purchaser.^*^'  But  the  title  will  not  vest  in 
the  purchaser  nor  the  sale  become  fully  effective  until  con- 
firmed.^ ^ 

§  281.  Confirmation  of  sale. — Confirmation  will  cure  a  great 
may  defects  in  the  method  of  sale,  but  where  the  errors  have 
reference  to  the  matter  of  priority,  it  is  said  that  a  more 
equitable  way  is  to  vacate  the  same,  and  to  have  the  prop- 
erty re-sold.^  All  parties  are  bound  to  know  the  law  and  the 
practice  of  the  court  and  if  the  sale  does  not  conform  thereto 

5  Gulick  V.  Webb,   41   Neb.   706,  Assn.   (Ind.)   49  N.  E.  28,  151  Ind. 

60  N.  W.  13,  43  Am.  St.  720.  463,    51    N.    E.    936;    Koken    Iron 

c  Hines     v.     Chicago     Bldg.     &  Works  v.   Robertson  Ave.  R.  Co., 

Mfg.  Co.,  115  Ala.  637,  22  So.  160.  141  Mo.   288,  4.4  S.  W.  269;   Good- 

"  Broyhill   v.   Gaither,     119      N.  win   v.   Cunningham,   54   Neb.    11, 

Car.  443,  26  S.  E.  31.  74  N.  W.  315;  American  Banking 

8  Kahler      v.     Betterton      (Tex.  &  Trust  Lo.  v.  Lynch,  10  S.  Dak. 
Civ.  App.)  51  S.  W.  289.  410,  73  N.  W.  908. 

9  Jarrett  v.  Hoover,  54  Neb.  56,  n  See   §  281. 

74  N.  W.  429.  1  Dingledine    v.    Hershman,    53 

10  Deming-Colborn    Lumber   Co.      111.   280. 
V.    Union    Nat.    Savings    &    Loan 


281] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


662 


it  may  be  set  aside.^  Constructive  notice  as  to  the  time  of 
confirmation  is  sufficient;  actual  notice  is  not  required."  Tiie 
matter  being  in  a  court  of  equity  whose  duty  it  is  to  protect 
all  parties,  as  much  as  possible,  the  sale  should  be  set  aside  if 
made  for  a  greatly  inadequate  price,'*  or  there  is  any  fraud 
connected  therewith;^  The  mere  fact  that  the  owner  has  at- 
tempted to  redeem  the  property  will  not  estop  him  from  con- 
testing the  validity  of  the  sale.'^  Sales  are  usually  set  aside 
for  sufficient  cause,  on  motion  and  notice  to  interested  parties.'^ 
The  purchaser  at  the  sale,  as  a  general  rule  gets  only  such  a 
title  as  the  proceedings  give  him.  Unless  other  lien  holders 
have  been  properly  made  parties,  he  will  only  take  the  title 
that  the  owner  had  at  the  time  the  lien  attached.^  And  in 
order  for  the  purchaser  to  maintain  his  title  he  must  show 
that  the  statute  has  been  complied  with.^  He  is  subrogated  to 
whatever  rights  the  defendant  may  have  and  may  set  up  any 
defense  that  the  defendant  could  have  asserted  against  any 
claim  or  demand. ^'^  W'hile  his  title  relates  back  to  the  time 
the  lien  became  effective,  the  purchaser  cannot  sue  the  owner 


2  Kizer  Lumber  Co.  v.  Mosley, 
56  Ark.  544,  20  S.  W.  409. 

3  Rogers,  &c.  Hardware  Co.  v. 
Cleveland  Bldg.  Co.  32  S.  W.  1. 
132  Mo.  442,  34  S.  W.  57,  53 
Am.  St.  494,  31  L.  R.  A.  335. 

•4  Rogers,  &c.  Hardware  Co.  v. 
Cleveland  Bldg.  Co.  32  S.  W.  1, 
132  Mo.  442,  34  S.  W.  57,  53 
Am.  St.  494,  31  L.  R.  A.  335. 

5  Gamble  v.  Voll,  15  Cal.  507. 

G  Holcomb  V.  Boynton,  151  111. 
294,  37  N.  E.  1031,  affirmed,  49  111. 
App.  503. 

"  Turney  v.  Saunders,  8  111.  239. 

s  California. — Purser  v.  Cady 
(Cal.)  49  Pac.  180. 

Iowa. — Shields  v.  Keys,  24 
Iowa  298. 


Pennsylyania. — Mustin  v.  Van- 
hook,  3  Whart.  (Pa.)  574; 
Twelves  v.  Williams,  3  Whart. 
(Pa.)  485,  31  Am.  Dec.  542;  Rog- 
ers V.  Klingler,  3  Whart.  (Pa.) 
332.  Title  as  shown  by  record 
controls.  Fahn  v.  Bleckley,  55 
Ga.  81.  A  purchaser  of  a  leasehold 
at  a  sale  for  the  enforcement  of 
a  mechanic's  lien  on  it,  only  ac- 
quires the  estate  held  by  the 
lessee  subject  to  the  conditions 
of  the  lease.  Reed  v.  Estes,  113 
Tenn.  200,  80  S.  W.  1086. 

9  Wagar  v.  Briscoe,  38  Mich. 
587. 

i'5  He  is  subrogated  to  all  the 
rights  of  the  defendant-owner. 
National  Transit  Co.  v.  Weston, 
121    Pa.    St.    485,      15     Atl.      569; 


663 


REMOVAL   OF    BUILDING. 


f§282 


for  damages  done  the  property.^ •-•'^  And  his  title  can  only  be 
impeached  by  a  person  who  is  not  a  party  to  the  suit.^^  Of 
course,  if  the  sale  should  have  been  wrongfully  made,  then 
parties  to  the  suit  might  at  any  time  object,  but  parties  to  the 
suit  will  not  ordinarily  be  permitted  to  object,  if  the  sale  is 
regularly  made.^^  Upon  the  setting  aside  of  a  void  sale,  the 
purchaser  should  be  placed  in  statu  quo.^^  'pj^g  statutes  gen- 
erally make  provision  for  the  protection  of  purchasers  at  void 
judicial  sales. ^^  The  general  equity  powers  of  the  court  will 
upon  confirmation  of  sale  permit  the  court  to  put  the  pur- 
chaser in  possession  or,  for  sufficient  reason,  relieve  him  from 
his  purchase. ^^ 

§  282.  Removal  of  building. — As  a  general  rule,  the  build- 
ing or  improvement  into  which  the  materials  go  or  for  which 
they  were  furnished,  become  a  part  of  the  real  estate  and 
cannot   be   separated   therefrom.^      But   under   some   statutes, 


Owens  V.  Heidbreder  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.)  44  S.  W.  1079.  The  pur- 
chaser is  entitled  to  set  up  as  a 
defense  to  a  mortgage  executed 
and  recorded  prior  to  the  filing 
of  the  lien,  that  such  mortgage 
was  without  consideration,  and 
that  an  assignment  thereof  to 
plaintiff  was  invalid.  Nichols  v. 
Hill,   6  Th.  &  C.    (N.  Y.)    335. 

loavan  Buskirk  v.  Summitville 
Min.  Co.,  38  Ind.  App.  198,  78  N. 
E.    208. 

iiBartlett  v.  Bilger,  92  Iowa 
732,  61  N.  W.  233;  Horton  v.  St. 
Louis,  &c.  R.  Co.,  84  Mo.  602. 

12  Sexton  V.  Alberti,  10  Lea 
(Tenn.)  4.52.  The  assignee  of  a 
mortgage  is  in  the  same  position 
that  his  assignor  was,  and  if  as- 
signor was  a  party,  assignee  is 
bound.  Smith  v.  De  Pontia,  8 
Kan.   App.   459,   54    Pac.   514. 


13  Powell  V.  Rogers,  11  111.  App. 
98.  He  must  receive  back  his 
purchase  money,  with  interest, 
and  be  charged  with  the  reason- 
able, rents  and  profits,  less  the 
taxes  paid  by  him.  Charleston  L., 
&c.  Co.  v.  Brockmeyer,  23  W.  Va. 
635. 

i-t  McBride  v.  Longworth,  14 
Ohio  St.  349,  84  Am.  Dec.  383. 

i«5  Suydam  v.  Holden,  11  Abb. 
Pr.  (N.  S.)  (N.  Y.)  329;  Van  Bus- 
kirk v.  Summitville  Min.  Co.,  32 
Ind.  App.  198,  78  N.  E.  208. 
Where  the  validity  of  the  judg- 
ment of  foreclosure  is  doubtful, 
the  purchaser  at  the  sale  will  not 
be  compelled  to  take  the  title. 
Sprickerhoff  v.  Gordon,  120  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)  748,  105  N.  Y.  Supp. 
586. 

1  Smith  V.  Phelps,  63  Mo.  585. 
Property  subject  to  lien,  see  §  12. 


§283] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


664 


where  tlie  building  or  improvement  is  put  thereon  by  a  lessee, 
it  may  be  removed,  and  in  such  case,  the  purchaser  succeeds 
only  to  the  rights  of  the  lessee.^  Where  the  lien  exists  on  the 
building  separate  from  the  land,  a  court  of  equity  may  grant 
a  right  to  remove  the  building  so  as  not  to  interfere  between 
the  equitable  rights  of  the  parties.^  But  where  it  can  be  re- 
moved, it  can  only  be  done  within  the  time  fixed  by  law,"*  and 
if  the  statute  fixes  the  time,  it  need  not  be  set  out  in  the  de- 
cree.-^ 

§  283.  Redemption — Description  in  deed. — In  some  states, 
the  equitable  right  of  redemption'^  is  recognized,'^  but  in  others, 
it  is  denied  even  though  the  proceeding  is  regarded  as  an 
equitable  one,^  unless  the  right  is  specifically  reserved  by  the 


Priority  of  liens  as  to  improve- 
ments, see  §  153.  Provisions  of 
lease,  see  §  141.  Right  to  remove 
as  means  of  enforcement  of  lien, 
see  §  198. 

2  Oswald  V.  Buekholz,  13  Iowa 
506.  A  subsequent  purchaser 
cannot  defeat  existing  rights. 
Shull  V.  Best  (Neb.)  93  N.  W. 
753.  And,  in  case  the  debtor  has 
no  permanent  interest  in  the 
land,  the  purchaser  of  the  build- 
ing at  the  sale  on  the  execution 
may  enter  on  the  land  and  re- 
move the  building.  Dean  v. 
Pyncheon,  3  Chand.   (Wis.)   9. 

"  Otley  V.  Haviland,  36  Miss.  19. 

Replevin. — One  purchasing  a 
building  under  a  decree  in  a  me- 
chanic's lien  suit  providing  for 
its  sale  separate  from  the  land 
obtains  title  thereto,  and  can 
maintain  a  replevin  therefor,  if  it 
is  not  occupied  as  a  family  dwell- 
ing. Shull  V.  Best  (Neb.)  93  N. 
W.  753. 


■i  Priebatsch  v.  Third  Baptist 
Church,  66  Miss.  345,  6  So.  237. 
Cannot  be  removed  before  the  ex- 
piration of  the  time  of  redemp- 
tion. Grand  Opera  House  Co.  v. 
MaGuire,  14  Mont.  558,  37  Pac. 
607. 

">  Grand  Opera  House  Co.  v. 
MaGuire,  14  Mont.  558,  37  Pac. 
607. 

0  Eqnitj-  of  Redemption.  —  A 
right  which  the  mortgagor  of  an 
estate  has  of  redeeming  it,  after 
it  has  been  forfeited  at  law  by 
the  non-payment  at  the  time  ap- 
pointed, of  the  money  secured  by 
the  mortgage  to  be  paid,  by  pay- 
ing the  amount  of  the  debt,  in- 
terest and  costs.     Bouv.   L.  Diet. 

"  Connecticut  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Stewart,  95  Ind.  588;  Dean  v. 
Pycheon,  3  Pinn.  17,  3  Chand. 
(Wis.)   9. 

s  Illinois. — Holcomb  v.  Boyn- 
ton,  151  111.  294,  37  N.  E.  1031; 
Schmidt  v.  Williams.  89  111.  117; 
Link  V.  Architectural  Iron  Works, 


665 


REDEMPTION. 


[§283 


statute,^  and  where  allowed,  the  right  must  be  taken  advan- 
tage of  within  the  time  limit. ^'^  But  the  time  need  not  be 
fixed  in  the  decree.^  ^  From  the  nature  and  character  of  the 
right  of  redemption,  it  is  plain  that  no  one  can  claim  the 
right  unless  he  has  some  legal  estate  in  the  premises. ^2  a 
simple  judgment  creditor  can  not  redeem  by  virtue  of  his 
lien,^^  nor  can  one  who  merely  holds  the  legal  title  as  security, 
claim  the  right  to  redeem  as  against  the  holder  of  the  equitable 
title. ^■^  However,  some  of  the  statutes,  aided  by  a  liberal  con- 
struction on  the  part  of  the  courts,  have  broadened  the  right 
so  as  to  enable  parties  in  interest  to  protect  their  rights, ^^ 
and  redeem  in  cases  where  the  right  would  otherwise  be 
denied.^*'  But  it  is  held  that  a  person  cannot  share  the  pro- 
ceeds and  also  claim  the  right  to  redeem  the  property. ^^  The 
mere  fact,  however,  that  he  is  made  a  party  defendant  wull  not 
bar  him   of  his   right   to   redeem. ^^      The   formal   conveyance 


24  111.  551;  Armsby  v.  People,  20 
111.   155. 

Iowa. — State  v.  Eads,  15  Iowa 
114,  83  Am.  Dec.  399. 

9  Keller  v.  Coman,  162  111.  117, 
44  N.  E.  434;  Bovey  De  Laittre 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Tucker,  48  Minn. 
223,  50  N.  W.  1038. 

10  When  Ignorance  of  time 
within  which  to  redeem  will  not 
defeat  right.  Seymour  v.  Davis, 
35  Conn.  264.  Within  one  year 
from  the  sale.  Buser  v.  Shepard. 
107  Ind.  417,  8  N.  E.  280;  State  v. 
Kerr,  51  Minn.  417,  53  N.  W.  719. 

iiMilner  v.  Norris,  13  Minn. 
455. 

12  Buser  v.  Shepard,  107  Ind. 
417,  8  N.  E.  280. 

13  Diddy  v.  Risser,  55  Iowa  699, 
8    N.   W.   655. 

14  Sheppard  v.  Messenger,  107 
Iowa  717,  77  N.  W.  515. 

ii5  Whitney   v.    Higgins,    10    Cal. 


547,  70  Am.  Dec.  748;  Gamble  v. 
Voll,   15   Cal.   507. 

iG  The  holder  of  a  junior  me- 
chanic's lien,  filed  after  an  ac- 
tion to  foreclose  a  senior  me- 
chanic's lien  was  commenced, 
can  redeem  from  such  foreclos- 
ure sale.  Jones  v.  Hartsock,  42 
Iowa  147. 

Where  a  junior  incumbrancer 
was  not  made  a  party  to  the  pro- 
ceeding to  foreclose  a  mechanic's 
lien,  his  right  to  redemption,  or 
any  other  right  he  might  have, 
was  not  cut  off  by  the  decree  of 
foreclosure.  Evans  v.  Tripp,  35 
Iowa  371. 

i'^  Phelps  V.  Pope,  53  Iowa  691, 
6  N.  W.  42.  A  party  cannot  re- 
deem from  his  own  sale.  Mc- 
Cullough  V.  Rose,  4  111.  App.  149. 

isBoynton  v.  Pierce,  49  111. 
App.   497. 


284]  ENFORCEMENT    OF   LIEN.  666 


to  the  purchaser  should  contain  a  specific  description  of  the 
premises  similar  to  that  in  ordinary  deeds. ^^  The  sheriff  or 
master  is  generally  required  to  make  the  conveyance.^*^ 

§  284.  Proceedings  and  liability  where  lien  right  fails  to 
pay  claim. — The  person  contracting  the  debt/  is  not  released 
from  liability  for  the  debt,  until  it  is  paid.-  Whether  there 
can  be  a  judgment  for  the  deficiency  that  may  exist  after  the 
property  has  been  sold  and  the  proceeds  applied  on  the  in- 
debtedness in  the  same  cause  of  action  or  whether  a  separate 
action  must  be  prosecuted,  is  a  question  upon  which  the  courts 
are  not  in  accord.  This  divergence  of  opinion  results  largely 
from  the  difference  in  the  statutes  of  the  several  states,  not 
alone  as  to  the  enforcement  of  the  lien,  but  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  action  to  enforce  the  same,  whether  it  is  legal  or  equitable. 
Generally  where  the  action  is  considered  equitable,  the  court 
in  the  same  proceeding  may,  if  there  has  been  personal  ser- 
vice, give  judgment  for  a  deficiency.-^  But  some  courts,  under 
other  statutes,  have  arrived  at  a  dift'erent  conclusion.^  In 
no  case,  however,  is  the  bringing  of  an  action  before  fore- 
closure a  waiver  of  any  debt.-^  While  none  of  the  courts  hold 
that  there  can  be  no  recovery  against  the  person  contracting 
the  debt  where  the  lien  fails,  yet  on  the  question  whether  there 
can  be  recover}^  of  a  personal  judgment  in  the  same  action, 
if  there  is  a  failure  to  establish  a  lien,  there  is  quite  a  con- 
trariety of  opinion ;   the   New  York  courts  and  some   others 

19  Munger  v.  Green,  20  Ind.  38.  2  Orr  v.  Wolff,  71  App.  Div.  (N. 

20  Randolph  v.  Leary,  3  E.  D.  Y.)  614,  75  N.  Y.  Supp.  549.  See 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  637,  4  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit.  Mechanics' 
Y.)    205;    Smith  v.  Corey,  3  E.  D.  Liens,   §301. 

Smith   (N.  Y.)    642,  4  Abb.  Pr.   (N.  ^  Ford  v.  Springer  Land  Assn., 

Y.)    208.  S  N.  Mex.  37,  41  Pac.  541. 

1  Wyman  v.  Qiiayle,  9  Wyo.  326,  ^  Johnson  v.  Frazee,  20  S.  Car. 

63    Pac.    988;    Thompson-Starrett  500. 

Co.    V.    Brooklyn    Heights    Realty  5  Bates  v.  Santa  Barbara  Coun- 

Co.,    Ill    App.    Div.    (N.    Y.)     358,  ty,    90    Cal.    543,   27    Pac.    438. 
98  N.  Y.  Supp.  128. 


667 


PERSONAL  LIABILITY. 


[§284 


holding  there  can  be  no  such  recovery.^  The  only  personal 
judgment  contemplated  is  for  a  deficiency  of  proceeds  where 
the  lien  has  been  established^  Even  though  the  proceeding  is 
regarded  as  being  purely  equitable,  yet  it  is  governed  by  the 
statute.^  And  only  such  relief  can  be  given  as  the  statute 
provides.     Under  later  statutes,   a   personal   judgment   is   al- 


6  Colorado. — Hart  &  Schless- 
enger  Corp.  v.  Mullen,  4  Colo. 
512. 

Indiana. — Falkner  v.  Colshear, 
39  Ind.  201;  McKinney  v.  Spring- 
er,  6   Blackf.    (Ind.)    511. 

Mississippi. — Hursey  v.  Has- 
sam,  45  Miss.  133. 

JVew  York. — Burroughs  v.  Tost- 
evan,  75  N.  Y.  567;  Castelli  v. 
Trahan,  77  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  472; 
78  N.  Y.  Supp.  950;  Donnelly  v. 
Libby,  1  Sweeny  (31  N.  Y.  Super.) 
259;  Gallick  v.  Engelhardt,  36 
Misc.  (N.  Y.)  269,  73  N.  Y.  Supp. 
309;  Hickey  v.  O'Brien,  11  Daly 
(N.  Y.)  292;  Jones  v.  Walker, 
1  Sheld.  (N.  Y.)  350;  Kelsey  v. 
Rourke,  50  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  315; 
Mowbray  v.  Levy,  85  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  68,  82  N.  Y.  Supp.  959; 
Scerbo  v.  Smith,  16  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
102,  38  N.  Y.  Supp.  570;  Fogarty 
V.  Wick,  8  Daly  (N.  Y.)  166;  Wey- 
er  V.  Beach,  79  N.  Y.  409;  Sin- 
clair V.  Fitch,  3  E.  D.  Smith  (N. 
Y.)  677;  Childs  v.  Bostwick,  65 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  146,  12  Daly  (N. 
Y.)    15. 

Washington.  —  Hildebrandt  v. 
Savage,  4  Wash.  524,  30  Pac.  643, 
32  Pac.  109. 

7  Hildebrandt  v.  Savage,  4 
Wash.  524,  30  Pac.  643,  32  Pac. 
109.  See  also,  Eisenbeis  v.  Wake- 
man,   3    Wash.    534,    28    Pac.    923; 


Koeppel  V.  Macbeth,  97  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  299,  89  N.  Y.  Sut)p.  969; 
Green  v.  Sprague,  120  111.  416,  11 
N.  E.  859;  Thompson-Starrett  Co. 
V.  Brooklyn  Heights  Realty  Co., 
Ill  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  358,  98  N. 
Y.  Supp.  128;  Weyer  v.  Beach, 
79  N.  Y.  409,  is  directly  in  point. 
There,  Judge  Rapello,  delivering 
the  opinion  of  the  court,  said: 
"This  point  has  several  times 
been  decided  by  this  court.  The 
proceeding  is  statutory,  and  can 
only  be  resorted  to  in  a  case 
falling  within  the  statute,  that  is, 
where  a  mechanic's  lien  exists. 
The  main  object  of  the  proceed- 
ing is  to  enfoi'ce  the  lien,  and 
the  power  to  render  a  personal 
judgment  is  merely  incidental  to 
the  main  purpose,  and  to  avoid 
the  necessity  of  resorting  to  a 
separate  action.  But  where  no 
lien  exists,  this  form  of  proceed- 
ing cannot  be  resorted  to  for  the 
purpose  of  enforcing  a  mere  per- 
sonal contract  between  the  part- 
ies, and  an  allegation  of  the  ex- 
istence of  the  lien  does  not  au- 
thorize the  substitution  of  this 
proceeding  in  place  of  the  prop- 
er common  law  action."  Cody  v. 
White,  34  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  638,  70  N. 
Y.   Supp.   589. 

•'*  Thomas  v.    Sahagian,   57   Hun 
(N.   Y.)    591,   10  N.   Y.   Supp.   874. 


284] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


668 


lowed,  if  the  prayer  of  the  complaint  is  for  that  kind  of  relief,^ 
and  this  applies  as  well  to  public  institutions  as  to  private 
individuals.^^  As  a  matter  of  course  if  the  lien  fails,  and  the 
court  has  no  jurisdiction  such  as  will  permit  it  to  render  a 
judgment  in  personam,  then  there  can  be  no  personal  judg- 
ment.^^  A  personal  judgment  has  been  sustained  where  the 
right  to  a  lien  exists,  but  for  some  reason  it  has  not  been 
foreclosed,  and  jurisdiction  was  acquired. ^^  The  prevailing 
opinion,  however,  is  that  if  the  court  once  has  jurisdiction  of 
the  parties,  and  the  right  to  a  lien  fails,  personal  liability  re- 
niains  for  which  a  judgment  may  be  rendered. ^^     A  voluntary 


» Ryan  v.  Train,  95  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  73,  88  N.  Y.  Supp.  441; 
Steuerwald  v.  Gill,  85  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  605,  83  N.  Y.  Supp.  396. 
It  does  not  allow  a  recovery 
against  others  than  the  person 
with  whom  the  contract  to  fur- 
nish labor  or  materials  was 
made.  Altieri  v.  Lyon,  27  Jones 
&  Sp.  (N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.)  110,  13  N. 
Y.   Supp.   617. 

10  Terwilliger  v.  Wheeler,  81 
App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  460,  81  N.  Y. 
Supp.  173. 

11  Miller  v.  Carlisle,  127  Cal. 
327,  59  Pac.  785;  Cameron  v. 
Marshall,  65  Tex.  7;  Builders' 
Supply  Depot  v.  O'Connor,  150 
Cal.  265,  88  Pac.  982,  119  Am.  St. 
193. 

12  Wick  V.  Ft.  Plain,  &c.  R. 
Co.,  27  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  577,  50 
N.  Y.  Supp.  479;  Thomas  v.  Saha- 
gian,  57  Hun  (N.  Y.)  591,  10  N.  Y. 
Supp.  874;  Crouch  v.  Moll,  55 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  603,  8  N.  Y.  Supp. 
183. 

13  Alabama. — Sullivan  Timber 
Co.  V.  Brushagel,  111  Ala.  114,  20 
So.  498;  Bedsole  v.  Peters,  79  Ala. 


133;  McGeever  v.  Harris  &  Sons, 
148  Ala.  503,  41  So.  930. 

Arkansas. — Brugman  v.  Mc- 
Guire,  32  Ark.  733. 

Dakota. — McCormack  v.  Phil- 
lips, 4  Dak.  506,  34  N.  W.  39. 

Iowa. — Kimball  v.  Bryan,  56 
Iowa  632,  10  N.  W.  218. 

Kansas. — Haight  v.  Schuck,  6 
Kan.  192. 

Minnesota,— Smith  v.  Gill,  37 
Minn.  455,  35  N.  W.  178. 

Missouri. — Mulloy  v.  Lawrence, 
31  Mo.  583;  Patrick  v.  Abeles,  27 
Mo.   184. 

]Vew  Jersey. — Tomlinson  v.  De- 
graw,    26    N.    J.    L.    73. 

Tennessee. — Dollman  v.  Col- 
lier, 92  Tenn.  660,  22  S.  W.  741. 

Washington.  —  Spaulding  v. 
Burke,  33  Wash.  679,  74  Pac.  829; 
Powell  V.  Nolan,  27  Wash.  318, 
67  Pac.  712,  68  Pac.  389;  Littell 
V.  Miller,  8  Wash.  566,  36  Pac. 
492. 

Wisconsin. — More  v.  Ruggles, 
15  Wis.  275;  Ponti  v.  Eckels,  129 
Wis.   26,   108   N.  W.   62. 

Even  though  the  law  granting 
the       lien       is       unconstitutional. 


669  DEFECTIVE   TITLE.  [§285 

relinquishment  of  the  right  to  a  Hen  merely  and  not  of  the 
debt,  does  not  affect  the  personal  liability  of  the  owner, ^■^ 

§  285.  Proceedings  when  defective  title  defeats  sale  of  prop- 
erty on  execution  to  satisfy  lien — Ohio  statute. — Section  3189 
of  the  Ohio  statute  provides:  If  in  an  action  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  such  lien,  the  property  subject  thereto  will  not  sell 
on  execution,  by  reason  of  a  defective  title,  the  court  shall 
order  the  officer  returning  the  execution  to  rent  or  lease  such 
property,  but  subject  to  all  prior  bona  fide  liens,  until  the 
rents  and  profits  thereof  pay  such  lien ;  and  the  rents  shall  be 
made  payable  to  such  officer,  or  his  successor  in  office,  and 
when  paid  shall  be  forthwith  returned  by  him  into  court,  for 
distribution  to  the  party  or  parties  thereto  entitled.^^ 

§  286.  Destruction  of  structure — Liability  to  subcontrac- 
tor.— Courts  that  hold  that  there  is  no  liability  where  there  is 
no  lien,  generally  also  hold  that  there  can  be  no  personal  re- 
covery if  the  lien  at  one  time  existed,  and  afterwards  is  lost.^ 
Generally  where  the  property  is  of  such  a  character  that  it 
cannot  be  made  subject  to  a  lien,  a  personal  judgment  can- 
not be  rendered  in  an  action  on  the  lien.  Some  other  course 
must  be  pursued.-  The  liability  of  the  owner  to  a  subcon- 
tractor depends  solely  on  the  validity  of  the  lien,-^  and  hence 
if  the  lien  fails,  the  owner  cannot  be  held  personally,  because 

Koepke  v.  Dyer,  80  Mich.  311,  45  Graw   v.    Godfrey,   56    N.    Y.    610; 

N.  W.   143.  Barton  v.  Herman,  8  Abb.  Pr.  (N. 

14  Pinch    V.     Turner,     21     Colo.  S.)    (N.   Y.)    399,   3    Daly    (N.   Y.) 

287,  40  Pac.  565.  320. 

1^"' 74  Ohio  Laws  c.  16S,  §  6;    S.  2  Bouton  v.  McDonough  County, 

&  C.  835.  84    111.    384;    Secrist   v.    Delaware 

1  New  York.— Glacius   v.  Black,  County,     100     Ind.     59.       County 

67  N.  Y.  563;   Darrow  v.  Morgan,  Court  House.     Quinn  v.  Allen,  85 

65    N.   Y.   333;    Maltby  v.   Greene,  111.    39.      County   Bridge.      Loring 

1  Keyes   (N.  Y.)    548,  3  Abb.  Dec.  v.  Small,  50  Iowa  271,  32  Am.  136. 

(N.  Y.)  144;  Schacttler  V.  Gardin-  3  prost    v.    Falgetter,    52    Neb. 

er,  41  How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    243;   Mc-  692,  73  N.  W.  12. 


§  286]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  670 

there  is  no  privity  between  the  subcontractor  and  the  owner  ;^ 
and  this  is  true,  even  where  the  statute  makes  the  owner 
liable,  in  cases  where  the  contractor  fails  to  do  some  act  re- 
quired by  the  lien  act ;  nevertheless,  the  subcontractor  must  re- 
cover by  virtue  of  the  act  creating  a  lien.^  However,  if  the 
statute  makes  the  contractor  the  agent  of  the  owner,  then 
a  personal  judgment  can  be  rendered  against  the  owner.^  But 
still,  the  subcontractor  must  show  that  he  is  within  the  statute. 
If  the  owner  has  sufficient  funds  in  his  hands  belonging  to  the 
principal  contractor  to  meet  the  subcontractor's  claim,  then, 
under  some  statutes,  a  judgment  may  be  rendered  personally 
against  the  contractor  and  owner,"  and  if  the  statute  compels 
the  owner  to  retain  funds  and  likewise  permits  a  personal 
judgment,  then,  of  course,  a  personal  judgment  against  the 
owner  may  be  rendered  and  enforced.^  If  the  statute  requires 
the  owner  to  take  a  bond,  for  the  protection  of  subcontractors, 
and  he  fails  to  do  so,  he  will  be  personally  liable  to  the  sub- 
contractors for  the  debt,^  the  subcontractor  showing  that  he 
is  within  the  terms  of  the  statute. ^^ 

4  Colorado. — Hume      v.      Robin-  ^  Madera  Flume  &  Trading  Co. 

son,    23    Colo.    359,    47    Pac.    271;  v.   Kendall,  120   Cal.   182,  52   Pac. 

Lowrey    v.    Svard,    8    Colo.    App.  304,  65  Am.  St.  177;    Santa  Clara 

357,  46  Pac.  619.  Valley   Mill,    &c.   Co.    v.    Williams 

Dakota.— McMillan    v.    Phillips,  (Cal.)      31     Pac.  1128;      Southern 

5     Dak.      294,      40     N.     W.     349.  California  Lumber  Co.  v.  Schmitt, 

He  can  have  a  personal  judgment  74  Cal.   625,   16  Pac.   516. 

against    the    contractor,    but    not  •'  Watson  v.   Noonday  INIin.   Co., 

against   the   owner.      Williams   v.  37  Ore.  287,  55  Pac.  867,  58  Pac. 

Porter,  51  Mo.  441.     In  a  suit  by  36,  60  Pac.  994. 

a  subcontractor  to  enforce  a  me-  '^  Taylor  v.  Netherwood,  91  Va. 

chanic's   lien,   it  was  held  that  a  88,  20  S.  E.  888. 

general     judgment     against     the  ^  Weber    v.    Bushnell,    171    111. 

owner    of    the    property    for    the  587,  49  N.  E.  728;   Toledo  Novelty 

debt   was   erroneous.     Heltzell   v.  Works    v.    Bernheimer,    8    Minn. 

Hynes,  35  Mo.  482.  118. 

New    York.— Schneider    v.    Ho-  »  Gibbs  v.  Tally    (Cal.)    63  Pac. 

bein,  41  How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    232.  168. 

Tennessee. — Taylor    v.    Tennes-  lo  Under   Code    Civ.    Proc.    Cal., 

see  Lumber  Co.,  107  Tenn.  41,  63  §  1203,   requiring  a  bond,  in  case 

S.  W.  1130.  of   a   building     contract,     in     an 


671 


PERSONAL   JUDGMENT. 


[§287 


§  287.     Personal  judgment,   when   may  be   obtained. — In   a 

previous  section/  it  was  shown  to  be  the  general  rule  that  a 
personal  judgment  could  be  taken  against  a  defendant  when 
personal  service  was  had  on  him.  Sometimes  this  matter  is 
deferred  until  it  is  seen  whether  or  not  the  money  can  be  re- 
covered from  the  property  itself.  This  is  especially  true  where 
any  other  than  the  contractor  himself  brings  the  action.  But 
if  the  contractor  himself  brings  the  action,  then  there  would 
be  the  obligation  on  the  debt  as  well  as  the  lien,  and  per- 
sonal judgment  might  be  taken  on  the  debt,  bearing  in  mind 
always  that  in  order  to  take  a  personal  judgment,  there  must 
be  personal  service. i'"*  And  furthermore,  there  must  be  a 
liability  for  the  debt  by  the  person  against  whom  judgment  is 


amount  equal  to  at  least  25  per 
cent,  of  the  contract  price,  in- 
uring to  the  benefit  of  persons 
performing  labor  and  furnishing 
materials  for  the  contractor,  and 
providing  as  limit  of  damages,  in 
case  of  a  bond,  the  value  of  labor 
and  materials  furnished,  not  ex- 
ceeding the  amount  of  the  bond, 
and  declaring  that  any  failure  to 
comply  with  the  provisions  of  the 
section  shall  render  the  owner 
and  contractor  liable  to  material 
men  and  laborers  entitled  to  liens 
on  the  property,  the  measure  of 
damages,  in  the  absence  of  a 
bond,  is  the  amount  of  the  claim 
for  labor  or  material,  not  ex- 
ceeding 25  per  cent,  of  the  con- 
tract price.  Gibbs  v.  Tally  (Cal.) 
63  Pac.  168. 

1  See  §  284.  See  Dec.  &  Am. 
Dig.    tit.    Mechanics'    Liens.    §304. 

la  Parish  v.  Murphy,  51  Ga. 
614;  Martin  v.  Berry,  159  Ind. 
566,  64  N.  E.  912;  McHale  v.  Ma- 
loney,  67  Neb.  532,  93  N.  W.  677; 


Pickens  v.  Polk,  42  Neb.  267,  60 
N.  W.  566;  Hall  Terra  Gotta 
Co.  V.  Doyle,  133  N.  Y.  603,  30 
N.  E.  1010;  Hubbell  v.  Schreyer, 
56  N.  Y.  604,  15  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
300;  Smith  v.  Coe,  29  N.  Y.  666. 
Even  where  statute  provides  that 
a  personal  judgment  may  be 
taken  against  any  party  to  the 
suit,  no  personal  judgment  can 
be  rendered  unless  it  is  the  debt 
of  the  party  against  whom  judg- 
ment is  sought.  Kane  v.  Hutkoff, 
81  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  105,  81  N. 
Y.  Supp.  85;  Ringle  v.  Wallis 
Iron  Works,  86  Hun  (N.  Y.)  153, 
33  N.  Y.  Supp.  398;  Richards  v. 
Lewisohn,  19  Mont.  128,  47  Pac. 
645.  In  all  instances  the  court 
must  have  acquired  jurisdiction 
by  personal  services.  Knauber 
V.  Fritz,  5  Ohio  Dec.  (He.)  410,  1 
Wkly.  L.  Bull.  (Ohio)  362,  5  Am. 
L.  Rec.  432;  Hallahan  v.  Herbert, 
11  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  (N.  Y.)  326,  4 
Daly  (N.  Y.)  209;  Security  Nat. 
Bank  v.  St.  Croix  Power  Co.,  117 


§  287] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


672 


rendered.-  However,  a  judgment  by  default  cannot  be  taken 
for  a  different  amount  from  that  prayed  for  in  the  petition.^ 
Of  course  the  party  may  bring  himself  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  court  so  as  to  permit  a  personal  judgment  by  doing 
something  that  amounts  to  an  entry  of  his  appearance.'*  In 
some  states/''  it  is  held  that  a  personal  judgment  in  no  case 
can  be  rendered  until  it  is  first  shown  that  there  is  a  right  to 
a  lien,  and  then  only  to  the  extent  of  the  lien  established.^ 


Wis.  211,  94  N.  W.  74.  A  subcon- 
tractor, materialman,  or  work- 
man between  whom  and  the 
owner  there  is  no  privity  of 
contract,  and  in  whose  favor 
no  direct  liability  has  been 
imposed  on  the  owner,  is 
not  entitled  to  a  personal  judg- 
ment against  the  owner,  but  the 
judgment  should  be  personal 
against  the  original  contractor 
and  a  decree  establishing  the  lien 
and  ordering  a  sale.  Alberti  v. 
Moore    (Okla.),    93   Pac.   543. 

2  yo  im]»lied  debt.  —  The 
fact  that  a  loan  company,  as  a 
condition  on  which  a  loan  for  the 
erection  of  buildings  on  land  of- 
fered as  security  required  that 
the  contemplated  improvements 
should  conform  to  plans  submit- 
ted with  the  application  for  the 
loan,  did  not  make  the  company 
a  promoter  of  such  improve- 
ments, so  as  to  subject  it  to  a 
direct  liability,  to  the  amount 
paid  by  it  out  of  the  loan  for  a 
mortgage  wjiich  was  a  paramount 
lien  on  the  land,  to  holders  of 
mechanic's  liens  created  by  rea- 
son of  the  improvements.  Rogers 
V.  Central  Loan  &  Trust  Co..  49 
Neb.    676,    68    N.    W.    1048. 

3  Lowe  V.  Turner,  1  Idaho  107; 


Dusick  V.  Meiselbach,  118  Wis. 
240,  95  N.  W.  144. 

4  Making  defense. — In  an  action 
brought  under  the  Mechanics' 
Lien  Law  (Pamph.  L.  1898,  p. 
547,  23,  24),  where  "legal  serv- 
ice" of  the  summons  has  been 
made  upon  a  non-resident  build- 
er, and  such  builder  then  ap- 
pears generally  in  the  action  or 
makes  defense  upon  the  merits, 
he  thereby  submits  himself  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  and 
if  the  verdict  goes  against  him, 
the  resulting  judgment  is  to  be 
a  "general"  judgment  binding  up- 
on such  builder  in  personam. 
Smith  V.  Colloty,  69  N.  J.  L.  365, 
55  Atl.  805. 

Filing  disclainser. — Error  in  or- 
dering execution  to  issue,  if  the 
property  to  which  a  mechanic's 
lien  attached,  did  not  satisfy  the 
judgment  against  one  who  was 
not  shown  to  be  personally  lia- 
ble, is  cured  by  filing  a  disclaim- 
er by  the  execution  creditor. 
Pearce  v.  Albright,  12  N.  Mex. 
202,  76  Pac.  286. 

'>  See    §  284. 

6  Kruger  v.  Braender.  3  Misc. 
(N.  Y.)  275,  23  N.  Y.  Supp.  324; 
Murphy  v.  Watertown,  112  App. 
Div.  (N.  Y.)   670,  99  N.  Y.  Supp.  6. 


673  PERSONAL   JUDGMENT.  [§288 

The  claim  of  a  mechanic  for  damages  and  breach  of  contract 
is  a  separate  cause  of  action  from  that  of  the  lien,  but  under 
the  codes  of  many  states  the  action  can  be  joined  with  an 
action  in  foreclosure,  and  in  that  way  where  proper  service 
has  been  made,  a  personal  judgment  can  be  rendered. '''  But 
such  action  must  be  tried  according  to  its  nature,  if  equitable 
by  the  court,  if  common  law  by  a  jury.^  This  is  the  rule  es- 
tablished by  the  Federal  Courts.^  The  action  is  generally  re- 
garded as  a  statutory  proceeding  and  the  claimant  is  entitled 
only  to  the  relief  given  by  the  statute  and  which  he  prays 
for  thereunder  in  his  petition. i*^  The  fact  that  the  judgment 
does  not  finally  dispose  of  the  case  will  not  affect  the  right, 
as  a  general  rule,  to  render  a  personal  judgment  against  the 
party  liable. ^^  If  the  contract  provides  for  payment  in  other 
than  money,  the  court  will  determine  the  amount  of  the 
owner's  liability  and  render  a  judgment  therefor. ^2 

§  288.  Remedy  of  subcontractor  when  his  contractor  or  the 
owner  refuses  to  pay — Ohio  statute. — Under  section  3200  of 
the  Ohio  statutes,  if  a  head  contractor  or  subcontractor  neglect 

7  Doll  V.  Coogan,  168  N.  Y.  653,  on  the  sale  or  for  rendering  per- 
61  N.  E.  1129.  sonal  judgment  therefor,  it  is  re- 

8  Deane  Steam  Pump  Co.  v.  versible  error  to  enter  a  judg- 
Clark.  87  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  459,  ment,  which,  in  form  is  a  person- 
84  N.  Y.  Supp.  851.  al   judgment   against   the    defend- 

9  Russell  V.  Hayner,  130  Fed.  ant,  for  the  amount  found  to  be 
90,  64  C.  C.  A.  424.  due.     Laycock  v.  Parker,  103  Wis. 

10  Kennedy,  &c.   Lumber  Co.  v.      161,  79  N.  W.  327. 

Priet,    115    Cal.    98,    46    Pac.    903.  HAs     where     suit    is     brought 

In   an  action  to   foreclose    a  me-  against   the   owner   and  contract- 

chanic's  lien  the  proceedings  are  or,   a  judgment  may  be  rendered 

wholly   statutory,   and   must  con-  against   the   owner,    although   the 

form    to    the    statute    regulating  matter    is   left  open   between   the 

the  practice  in  such  actions;   and  complainant  and  contractor.  Har- 

where  there  is  no  prayer  for  such  ris   v.    Harris,    18    Colo.    App.    34, 

relief   in   the   complaint,    and   the  69   Pac.   309. 

judgment    contains    no    provision  12  Dowdney  v.  McCullom,  59  N. 

for   ascertaining  a   deficiency   up-  Y.  367. 


43 


§  289]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  674 

or  refuse  to  pa}',  within  five  days  after  his  assent  to  or  ad- 
justment of  any  claim,  the  amount  thereof,  and  costs  incurred, 
to  the  subcontractor  or  material  man,  laborer  or  mechanic, 
the  owner,  board,  officer  or  clerk  or  agent  thereof,  shall  pay, 
when  due,  the  whole  or  a  pro  rata  amount  thereof  as  the 
case  may  be,  as  above  provided  out  of  payments  subsequently 
falling  due,  and  on  his  failure  so  to  do.  within  ten  days  there- 
after, the  subcontractor  or  material  man,  laborer,  mechanic 
or  person  furnishing  material  may  recover  against  the  owner, 
in  an  action  for  money  had  or  received,  when  due,  the  whole 
or  a  pro  rata  amount,  as  the  case  may  be,  of  his  claim  or  esti- 
mate, not  exceeding  in  any  case  the  balance  due  to  the  princi- 
pal contractor. 13 

^  289.  Personal  liability  of  the  owner  under  the  Indiana 
statute. — The  provision  of  the  Indiana  statute  as  to  the  per- 
sonal liability  of  the  owner  is  as  follows :  Any  subcontractor, 
journeyman  or  laborer  employed  in  erecting,  altering,  repair- 
ing or  removing  any  house,  mill,  manufactory  or  other  build- 
ing or  bridge,  reservoir,  system  of  waterworks,  or  other  struc- 
ture, or  in  furnishing  any  material  or  machinery  therefor,  may 
give  to  the  owner  thereof,  or,  if  said  owner  is  absent,  to  his 
agent,  notice  in  writing,  particularly  setting  forth  the  amount 
of  his  claim  and  services  rendered,  for  which  his  employer 
is  indebted  to  him,  and  that  he  holds  the  owner  responsible 
for  the  same ;  and  the  owner  shall  be  liable  for  such  claim,  but 
not  to  exceed  the  amount  which  may  be  due,  and  may  thereafter 
become  due  from  him  to  the  employer,  which  may  be  recovered 
in  an  action  whenever  an  amount  equal  to  such  claim,  over 
other  claims  having  priority,  shall  be  due  from  such  owner  to 
the  employer.  And  any  such  subcontractor,  journeyman  or 
laborer,  by  giving  notice  as  above  provided,  setting  forth  the 
amount  of  labor  he  has  engaged  to  perform,  or  of  materials 
or  machinery   he   has   engaged   to   furnish   in   erecting,   alter- 

13  97  Ohio  Laws,  502.    See  form, 
§  215. 


675  PERSONAL  LIABILITY — INDIANA  STATUTE.  [§289 

ing,  repairing,  or  removing  of  any  of  the  buildings,  and  other 
structure (s)  above  described,  shall  have  the  same  rights  and 
remedies  against  such  owner  for  the  amount  of  such  labor  per- 
formed, or  materials  or  machinery  furnished,  after  said  notice 
is  given,  as  are  above  secured  and  provided,  (for  those)  who 
serve  notice  after  the  labor  is  performed  or  the  materials  or 
machinery  furnished.  And  whenever  an  action  is  brought 
against  an  owner,  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  this 
section,  all  subcontractors,  journeymen  and  laborers  who  have 
performed  labor  or  furnished  materials  or  machinery,  and  given 
notice  as  herein  required,  may  become  parties  to  such  action; 
and  if,  upon  final  judgment  against  such  owner,  the  amount 
recovered  and  collected  shall  not  be  sufficient  to  pay  said  claim- 
ants in  full,  the  same  shall  be  divided  among  them  pro  rata.^ 
This  statute  is  to  be  liberally  construed^''  in  favor  of  those  who 
show  that  they  have  brought  themselves  within  its  terms. 
But  there  can  be  no  personal  judgment  without  proof  that  the 
notice  required  by  this  section  was  duly  served. ^*^ 

1.     Nature  of  lien  and  zvho  may  have. 

The  above  provision,  while  put  in  the  mechanics'  lien  act, 
does  not  in  fact  give  any  lien  whatever  upon  the  property, 
unless  it  might  be  considered  that  after  the  notice  is  given, 
a  lien  attaches  to  the  fund  that  is  in  the  hands  of  the  owner, 
and  that  he  becomes  personally  responsible  therefor.  Per- 
sons coming  within  its  provisions  are  specifically  classed  as 
subcontractors,  journeymen  or  laborers,  and  is  probably  not 
as  broad  as  the  classes  included  in  the  statute  relating  to  the 
lien  on  the  property.  The  statute  must  be  followed,  and  it 
is  held  that  the  giving  of  the  notice  of  the  intention  to  hold 
a  lien  will  not  be  such  a  compliance  with  this  section  as  will 

1  Acts  1909,  Sec.  8,  re-enacting  i^Lawton  v.  Case,   73   Ind.   60; 

Burns  1908,  Sec.  8307.  Farrell   v.    Lafayette   etc.   Co.,    12 

la  Oilman  v.  Card,  29  Ind.  291.  Ind.  App.  326,  40  N.  E.  25. 


§  289]  ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN.  676 

make  the  owner  personally  liable. ^'^  Generally  the  statute  ap- 
plies to  persons  of  the  designated  classes  furnishing  either  la- 
bor or  materials.^ 

2.     Kind  of  services. 

The  services  for  which  the  liability  attaches  under  this  sta- 
tute, are  those  incurred  in  erecting,  altering,  repairing  or  re- 
moving the  structure  mentioned  in  the  statute,  or  furnishing 
any  material  or  machinery  therefor.^  If  the  labor  is  for 
another  purpose  than  that  mentioned  in  the  statute,  no  per- 
sonal liability  can  be  enforced  against  the  owner. 

3.    Kind  of  structures. 

The  statute  enumerates  a  house,  mill,  manufactory,  or  other 
building  or  bridge,  reservoir,  system  of  waterworks  or  other 
structure,  as  the  kind  of  structures  upon  which  the  labor  is 
to  be  done  or  toward  which  material  is  to  be  furnished,  before 
a  lien  may  attach.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  class 
here  enumerated  is  not  as  large  as  that  under  the  statute 
granting  a  lien  on  the  property  for  such  structures  as  side- 
walks, walks,  stiles,  wells,  drains,  sewers,  cisterns,  etc.,  and 
there  may  be  some  question  whether  such  matters  would  be 
included,  unless  the  services  were  performed  under  a  contract 
connected  with  a  principal  building  as  an  appurtenant  thereto. 
No  personal  liability  can  be  fixed  upon  a  public  corporation  for 
the  erection  of  a  jail,^  school  house,^  or  other  public  building 
by  giving  such  a  notice. 

icCrawford  v.  Crockett,  55  Ind.  150;  Crawford  v.  Crockett,  55  Ind. 

220;    Lawton  v.  Case,  73  Ind.   60.  220. 

2  O'Halloran  v.  Leachey,  39  ^  Secrist  v.  Board,  100  Ind.  59. 
Ind.  150;  Crawford  v.  Crockett,  5  Jeffries  v.  Myers,  9  Ind.  App. 
55  Ind.   220.  563;  37  N.  E.  301. 

3  O'Halloran  v.  Leachey,  39  Ind. 


677  PERSONAL  LIABILITY — INDIANA  STATUTE.  [§  290 

4.     Contractor's  bond. 

Where  the  contractor  gives  a  bond  containing  an  undertak- 
ing to  pay  for  all  labor  and  materials  used  in  the  construction 
of  a  building,  both  principal  and  sureties  are  personally  liable 
in  a  direct  action  on  such  bond  by  subcontractors,  laborers  or 
material  men.^ 

§  290.  Personal  liability  under  Indiana  statute — Notice. — 
The  right  to  pursue  the  owner  personally  only  attaches  when 
a  notice  is  given  to  the  owner.  If  the  owner  is  absent  then  it 
will  be  sufficient  to  give  the  notice  to  his  agent.  Since  the 
right  to  pursue  the  owner,  as  well  as  the  amount  that  may  be 
recovered,  depends  upon  this  service,  a  strict  compliance  with 
the  statute  is  required.  A  copy  of  the  notice  should  be  pre- 
served by  the  person  giving  the  same,  as  well  as  a  memoran- 
dum of  the  time  of  service,  and  the  person  to  whom  the  notice 
was  given.  In  no  case  should  the  notice  be  given  to  an  agent 
unless  the  owner  is  absent.  This  means  that  the  owner  must 
be  in  such  a  place  that  service  cannot  quickly  and  properly  be 
made  on  him.  The  first  element  of  the  notice  is,  that  it  should 
be  in  writing.  A  personal  notice  would  not  satisfy  the  re- 
qufrements  of  the  statute.  Neither  would  a  notice  under  a 
previous  section  of  the  statute  of  an  intention  to  hold  a  lien,  be 
sufficient,^  The  second  requisite  is,  that  the  notice  must  set  forth 
the  amount  of  the  claim,  and  the  services  rendered,  for  which 
the  employer  is  indebted  to  him.  This  need  not  under  the 
decisions  of  this  state  be  an  itemized  account,  but  it  should 
be  such  a  statement  as  will  clearly  show  the  amount  for  which 
it  is  sought  to  hold  the  owner  responsible.^*     Courts  say,  that 

CGwinn  v.  Wright— Ind.  App.—  Ind.  App.  652,  53  N.  E.  295;  Jef- 
86  N.  E.  453;  Ochs  v.  Carnahan,—  fries  v.  Myers,  19  Ind.  App.  563,  37 
Ind.  App.— 80  N.  E.  163;  Williams      N.  E.  301. 

V.  Markland,  15  Ind.  App.  672,  44  i  Crawford  v.  Crockett,  55  Ind. 

N.  E.  562;  Brown  v.  Markland,  22       220;    Lawton  v.   Case,  73   Ind.   60. 

la  Oilman  v.  Gard,  29  Ind.  291. 


§  290]  ENFORCEMENT   OF  LIEN.  678 

this  notice  must  show  that  the  work  was  done  or  the  ma- 
terials were  furnished  to  a  contractor  having  a  contract  with 
the  owner,  and  state  the  amount  due.  It  ought  also  to  give 
some  idea  of  where  the  work  was  performed,  but  it  is  not 
necessary  to  describe  the  premises,  and  it  need  not  be  re- 
corded.2  When  the  notice  is  once  properly  served  then  the 
owner  can  no  longer  safely  pay  any  portion  that  he  may  owe 
the  contractor,  without  becoming  personally  liable  for  what- 
ever is  due  and  coming  to  the  contractor,  at  the  time  notice  is 
given. •■^  But  if  the  liability  of  the  owner  to  the  contractor  has 
ceased,  even  though  it  be  by  an  assignment  by  the  contractor 
of  all  his  property,  including  this  claim,  for  the  benefit  of  cred- 
itors, the  service  of  notice  on  such  owner  will  not  make  him 
personally  liable  to  the  workmen.-^  This  giving  of  no- 
tice only  affects  the  personal  liability  of  the  own- 
er— it  does  not  aft'ect  the  right  to  the  lien.  There  is 
no  particular  time  designated  as  to  when  the  notice  must 
be  given.  The  only  requisite  to  make  it  effective  is,  that  it 
be  given  while  the  owner  is  still  indebted  to  the  contractor.'* 
Public  corporations  cannot  be  held  personally  liable  under  this 
statute.-^  Neither  can  a  personal  liability  under  this  statute  be 
enforced  against  anybody  else  than  the  owner  of  the  property 
improved  by  reason  of  his  personal  liability,  with  such  owner,  to 
the  principal  contractor  for  the  cost  of  the  improvements.^* 

§  291.    Personal  liability  under  Indiana  statute — Actions. — 

The  liability  against  the  owner  is  enforced  by  an  ordinary  ac- 
tion of  money  had  and  received.  This  action  may  be  com- 
menced at  any  time  after  the  service  of  notice  is  given,  and 

2  Gilman  v.  Gard,   29   Ind.   291;  -i  School   Town  v.   Gebhardt,   61 
O'Halloran    v.    Leachey,    39    Ind.      Ind.  187. 

150;    Crawfordsville    v.    Irwin,    46  J  Jeffries  v.  Myers,  9  Ind.  App. 

Ind.    438.  563,  37  N.  E.  301. 

3  Kulp    V.    Chamberlain,    4    Ind.  5.i  Crawford  v.  Powell,  101  Ind. 
App.  560,  31  N.  E.  376.  421;    School   Town  v.  Gebhart  61 

Ind.  187. 


679  PERSONAL  LIABILITY INDIANA  STATUTE.  [§291 

the  money  is  due,  under  the  contract  of  the  owner  with  the 
contractor.  No  one  but  the  owner  of  the  building  can  be  made 
liable  under  this  statute. ^'^  And  the  items  for  different  build- 
ings must  be  kept  separate,  so  that  the  amount  can  be  dis- 
tinguished as  to  its  place  of  service,  especially  where  the 
same  is  put  upon  different  buildings.-  The  limitation  of  the 
statute  relating  to  liens  on  property,  that  the  action  be  com- 
menced in  one  year,  does  not  apply  to  this  section. ^  Courts 
have  held,  that  the  complaint  or  petition  under  this  section, 
need  not  contain  a  copy  of  the  notice  served  on  such  owner.* 
And  furthermore  that  it  need  not  be  shown  in  the  complaint 
that  the  parties  have  a  right  to  enforce  a  lien.-^  However, 
the  pursuit  of  the  remedy  provided  by  this  statute  does  not 
prevent  the  subcontractor  from  taking  a  lien  on  the  building.^ 
And  the  complaint  might  be  sufificient  to  enforce  a  personal 
liability  that  would  not  be  sufificient  to  enforce  the  lien."  The 
amount  of  recovery  by  a  subcontractor  or  laborer  must  be  de- 
termined by  reference  to  the  contract  between  the  owner  and 
the  principal  contractor,  and  the  statement  of  their  respective 
accounts  at  and  after  the  time  the  notice  was  served. "'^  If  the 
plaintiff  is  entitled  to  the  foreclosure  of  his  lien,  and  the  judg- 
ment rendered  is  erroneously  made  to  include  a  personal  judg- 
ment, the  only  remedy  of  the  owner  is  by  a  motion  to  modify 
such  judgment."*^  If  a  complaint  to  foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien 
is  brought  against  the  owner  and  the  contractor  alleges  a  per- 
sonal liability  in  general  terms  of  judgment  in  favor  of  such 

la  Crawford  v.  Powell,  101  Ind.  3  Clark  v.  Maxwell,  12  Ind.  App. 

421.  199,  40  N.  E.   274. 

2  Crawford   v.    Powell,   101    Ind.  o  O'Halloran     v.      Leachey,     39 

421.  Ind.    150;    Crawford    v.    Crockett, 

•■5  School   Town   v.   Gebhardt,   61  5.5    Ind.    220. 

Ind.  187.  T  Clark     v.     Maxwell,     12     Ind. 

■4  Irwin     V.     Crawfordsville,     58  App.  199,  40  N.  E.     274. 

Ind.    492;    School    Town    v.    Geb-  Ta  Roberts  v.  Koss,  32  Ind.  App. 

hardt,    61    Ind.    187;    Adamson    v.  510,  70  N.  E.  185. 

Shaner,    3    Ind.    App.    448,    29    N.  TbHome  B.   Co.   v.   Johnson,   41 

E.    944.  Ind.  App.  44,  83  N.  E.  358. 


§292] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF    LIEN. 


680 


owner  in  that  action  will  bar  a  second  suit  to  enforce  a  per- 
sonal liability  against  him  on  another  ground  inconsistent 
therewith."'^ 

§  292.  Personal  judgment — Miscellaneous  matters. — It  is 
error  to  render  a  personal  judgment  against  a  person  not 
liable  for  the  demand,  merely  because  he  is  in  possession 
and  claiming  title. ^  If  there  is  a  legal  lien  against  the  prop- 
erty, the  purchaser  or  other  lienor  may  pay  the  debt  to  save 
his  property,  and  might  in  some  cases  be  subrogated  to  the 
rights  of  a  person  for  whom  he  pays  the  debt,  but  he  is  not 
otherwise  obliged  to  pay  the  debt  itself.^  A  personal  judg- 
ment cannot  be  rendered  unless  there  is  a  privity  of  contract 
between  the  person  claiming  the  judgment  and  the  person 
against  whom  it  is  claimed.^  If  it  is  claimed  by  reason  of 
a  contract  with  an  agent  it  must  be  shown  to  have  been  within 
the  scope  of  the  agent's  authority.'*  Even  if  the  statute  makes 
the  owner  directly  responsible,  this  privity  of  contract  is  pre- 
sumed from  the  law.  But  under  such  statutes  no  personal 
judgment  can  be  rendered  against  the  owner.  The  claimant 
must  look  to  the  property. "^'^    If  the  original  contract  is  invalid, 


'c  United,  etc.  Co.  v.  Alberson — 
Ind.  App.— 88  N.  E.  May  12,  1909. 

1  Loring  v.   Flora,   24  Ark.   151. 

2  Work  V.  Hall,  79  111.  196; 
Quimby  v.  Sloan,  2  E.  D.  Smith 
(N.  Y.)  594,  2  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  93; 
Mentzer  v.  Peters,  6  Wash.  540. 
33  Pac.  1078;  McGrew  v.  Mc- 
Carty,    78    Ind.   496. 

3  Alabama. — May,  &c.  Hardware 
Co.  V.  McConnell,  102  Ala.  577,  14 
So.  768. 

Califoruiji. — Phelps  v.  Max- 
well's Creek  Gold  Min.  Co.,  49 
Cal.   336. 

Illinois. — Bonney  v.  Ketcham, 
51  111.  App.  321. 

Indiana. — McDaniel    v.    Weaver, 


14  Ind.  517;  Farrell  v.  LaFayette 
Lumber  &  Mfg.  Co.,  12  Ind.  App. 
326,  40  N.  E.  25. 

Kansas. — Hodgson  v.  Billson, 
12    Kan.    568. 

Missouri. — Schmeiding  v.  Ew- 
ing,  57  Mo.  78;  Walkenhorst  v. 
Coste,  33  Mo.  401. 

Montana.— Gilliam  v.  Black,  16 
Mont.  217,  40  Pac.  303. 

New  York. — Cox  v.  Broderick, 
4  E.  D.  Smith   (N.  Y.)   721. 

Texas.— Waldorff  v.  Scott,  46 
Tex.   1. 

^  Willverding  v.  Offineer,  87 
Iowa   475,   54   N.   W.    592. 

•la  Merced  Lumber  Co.  v.  Brus- 
chi,  152  Cal.  372,  92  Pac.  844. 


681  PERSONAL  JUDGMENT.  [§  292 

no  personal  judgment  can  be  rendered.^  Whether  or  not  a 
personal  judgment  can  be  rendered  against  the  principal  con- 
tractor in  an  action  brought  by  a  subcontractor,  will  depend 
upon  the  facts  and  the  pleadings,  but  it  is  not  necessary  where 
a  principal  contractor  is  liable  to  a  subcontractor,  to  wait  until 
there  is  a  decree  of  foreclosure  before  a  personal  judgment 
can  be  rendered.^  Neither  is  it  necessary  that  there  should 
be  a  personal  judgment  before  there  can  be  a  foreclosure  of 
a  lienJ  Where  a  court  has  proper  jurisdiction,  a  personal 
judgment  against  a  contractor  cannot  be  attacked  collater- 
ally.* Upon  the  question  whether  or  not  the  court  in  the 
same  action  may  render  a  personal  judgment  against  the  con- 
tractor, the  same  distinction  rests  as  against  the  owner  in 
this,  that  some  courts  hold  that  no  such  judgment  can  be  ren- 
dered unless  the  facts  are  sufficient  to  establish  the  right  to 
a  lien.*^  A  personal  judgment  is  not  usually  permitted  where 
service  of  process  is  had  by  publication.^*^  If  the  subcontrac- 
tor has  dealt  in  such  a  way  that  credit  was  given  to  both  con- 

5  Ponti  V.  Eckels,  129  Wis.  26,  '  "Lastly,  it  is  said  that  there 
108  N.  W.  62;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  is  no  judgment  against  the  part- 
Perris  Irr.  Dist.,  107  Cal.  55,  40  ies  personally  liable,  and  that 
Pac.  45.  such    judgment    is    necessary    to 

6  Holland  v.  Cunliff,  96  Mo.  support  the  lien.  We  know  of 
App.   67,  69   S.  W.  737.  no    law    or    decision    supporting 

Sufficient     allegation     to     dis-  this  position."    Russ  Lumber  &c. 

charge. — Where    a    complaint     to  Co.  v.  Garrettson,  87  Cal.  589,  25 

foreclose    a   mechanic's    lien   con-  Pac.  747. 

tains  all  the     allegations     neces-  ^  Glen  Cove  Granite  Co.  v.  Cos- 

sary     to     authorize     a     personal  tello,    65    App.    Div.     (N.    Y.)    43, 

judgment    against    the    defendant  72  N.  Y.  Supp.  531. 

sureties  on   a  bond  given  to  dis-  'J  Cahill    v.    McCornish,    74    Mo. 

charge    the    lien,    and    asks    for  App.   609 ;    Nussberger  v.  Wasser- 

judgment    according    to    the    law  man,  40  Misc.    (N.   Y.)    120,  81  N. 

of   the    case    and   for    further   re-  Y.  Supp.  295;  Mathiasen  v.  Shan- 

lief,    the    defendants    are    suffici-  non,   25   Misc.    (N.   Y.)    274,   54  N. 

ently    apprised    that    a    personal  Y.  Supp.  305. 

judgment     is     to     be     demanded.  i"  Bombeck  v.   Devorss,  19   Mo. 

Mathiasen    v.    Shannon,    25    Misc.  App.  38. 
(N.  Y.)  274,  54  N.  Y.  Supp.  305. 


293] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


682 


tractor  and  owner,  a  personal  judgment  may  be  rendered 
against  both.^^  Under  some  statutes  the  party  complaining  is 
required  to  enforce  a  liability  against  the  contractor  in  an 
action  brought  on  the  lien,  before  a  personal  judgment  can 
be  had,  but  under  others  this  seems  to  be  optional.^2  jf  the 
property  is  of  such  character  that  no  lien  right  can  be  en- 
forced, the  subcontractor  may  be  barred  of  his  action. ^^ 

§  293.  Proceeds  of  sale. — The  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the 
premises  sold  on  foreclosure  of  a  mechanic's  lien,  are  dis- 
tributed according  to  the  order  of  the  court.  As  a  general 
rule,  the  first  item  to  be  paid  is  the  costs  and  expenses  of  the 
litigation.^  Second,  the  liens  in  the  order  of  their  priority  as 
found  by  the  court.-  Third,  after  the  lien  claimants  have  been 
paid,  the  remainder  should  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  other 
claims  upon  the  property  that  are  found  to  be  prior  in  right 
to  the  owners.^     Where  a  sale  is  made  and  confirmed  and  the 


iiHubbell  V.  Schreyer,  56  N.  Y. 
604,  15  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  300.  In 
a  proceeding  by  a  subcontractor 
to  enforce  a  mechanic's  lien  un- 
der the  mechanic's  lien  law  (23 
Stat.  65)  a  personal  judgment 
against  the  owner  of  the  prop- 
erty as  well  as  the  original  con- 
tractor, is  proper,  where,  during 
the  progress  of  the  building,  the 
contractor  failed  and  abandoned 
the  work,  and  where  the  record 
shows  an  unexpended  balance  of 
the  contract  price  remaining  in 
the  owner's  hands  more  than 
sufficient  to  pay  the  claim  of  the 
subcontractor.  Emack  v.  Rushen- 
berger,  8  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  249. 
Cannot  exceed  amount  due  at 
time  notice  is  given.  Hughes 
Bros.  V.  Hoover,  3  Cal.  App.  145, 
84   Pac.   681. 


12  Hill  V.  Chowning,  93  Mo. 
App.  620,  67  S.  W.  750;  Clapper 
V.  Strong,  41  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  184, 
S3   N.   Y.    Supp.   935. 

1^  The  right  given  to  a  subcon- 
tractor by  lien  law,  §  37,  to  re- 
cover a  personal  judgment 
against  the  original  contractor 
and  the  owner  of  the  bulding,  is 
dependent  on  a  lien  at  some  time 
having  attached;  hence  such  a 
suit  will  not  lie  against  school 
directors  and  a  contractor  for 
labor  and  material  furnished  for 
the  erection  of  a  school  house. 
Quinn  v.  Allen,  85  111.  39. 

1  See  Fees  and  Costs,  §§  299- 
302.  See  Dec.  &  Am.  Dig.  tit 
Mechanics'  Lien  §  308. 

2  See  Sections  144-164,  where 
rights   of   priority   are    discussed. 

3  In  re  McFarland's  Estate,  16 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  142. 


683 


PROCEEDS  OF  SALE. 


293 


purchaser  fails  to  pay  the  purchase  money,  the  execution 
officer  may  recover  the  same  in  an  action  in  his  own  name.'* 
And  if  the  sheriff  should  wrongfully  pay  out  money,  the 
creditors  may  sue  to  recover  it  back  in  the  sheriff's  name.^  The 
manner  of  distribution  is  that  set  out  in  the  decree.^  The  mere 
fact  that  the  execution  is  so  worn  as  not  to  show  what  the 
order  was,  will  not  affect  its  validity,'''  and  extraneous  evidence 
may  be  heard  to  prove  its  contents.^  Matters  of  priority  should 
be  determined  before  the  decree  is  entered  and  where  this  is 
done  the  decree  can  not  be  thereafter  attacked  unless  for 
special  cause  shown.^  There  can  be  no  legal  distribution  ex- 
cept in  the  order  of  priority  allowed  by  law  and  found  by 
the  court. I''     A  person  entitled  to  priority  may  assign   such 


4  Trustees',  Executors',  &c., 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Bowling,  2  Kan.  App. 
770,  44  Pac.  42. 

5  Buchter  v.  Dew,  39  111.  40. 

6  Sicardi  v.  Keystone  Oil  Co., 
149  Pa.  St.  139,  24  Atl.  161,  163. 
The  term  "distribution"  as  em- 
ployed in  Mechanic's  lien  Act, 
1,  as  amended  by  Laws  1893, 
Michigan,  Act.  No.  199,  providing 
that  the  owner  of  a  building  is 
not  to  be  protected  in  payment 
to  the  contractor  unless  the  same 
is  distributed  to  the  subcontrac- 
tors, etc.,  means  a  prorating  to 
all  entitled  to  take,  and  not  a 
payment  to  one  of  the  entire  con- 
tract price.  Fairbairn  v.  Moody, 
116  Mich.  61,  74  N.  W.  386,  75  N. 
W.  469.     See  §  274. 

7  Yarborough  v.  Lumpkin,  52 
Ga.   280. 

8  Yarborough  v.  Lumpkin,  52 
Ga.  280.  In  re  Hill's  Estate,  2 
Clark  (Pa.)  96,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  323. 

9  Yarborough  v.  Lumpkin,  52 
Ga.  280;    Lauman's  Appeal,  8  Pa. 


St.  473;  Wrigley  v.  Mahaffey,  5 
Pa.  Dist.  389. 

10  State  V.  Drew,  43  Mo.  App. 
362. 

In  a  contest  between  mechanics 
and  others  for  a  fund  in  court, 
a  judgment  recovered  by  the  me- 
chanic upon  a  sci.  fa.  is  as  to 
the  other  claimants,  res  inter 
alios  acta,  and  not  even  prima 
facie  evidence.  As  a  judgment  it 
ranks  merely  from  its  date.  To 
come  in  as  a  lien,  it  must  be 
proved  so  as  to  entitle  it  to  re- 
late to  the  commencement  of  the 
building.  If  such  judgments  are 
even  prima  facie  evidence,  honest 
mechanics  might  be  defrauded 
with  the  greatest  ease  by  the 
owners,  when  they  became  in- 
volved, confessing  judgments  or 
allowing  them  to  be  entered 
against  them,  and  it  would  be  ut- 
terly impossible  for  strangers  to 
controvert  them.  Smedley  v. 
Conaway,  5  Clark  (Pa.)  417;  Mc- 
Kim  V.  Mason,  3  Md.  Ch.  186. 


§294] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF  LIEN. 


684 


right  and  be  preceded  by  the  claimant  to  whom  he  assigns. ^^ 
As  a  general  rule,  prior  incumbrancers  of  the  land  are  en- 
titled to  priority  of  payment  out  of  the  entire  proceeds, ^2  bm 
where  the  mechanic's  lien  is  allowed  on  the  building  separate 
from  the  land,  questions  as  to  the  proper  apportionment  of 
the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  land  and  building  are  sure  to 
arise, 1^  and  in  such  cases,  the  court  must  determine  what  is  to 
be  applied  to  each.^"*  The  general  rule  is  that  the  prior  in- 
cumbrancer takes  such  share  of  the  proceeds  as  the  value  be- 
fore the  imprpvements  were  put  on,  bears  to  the  total  value 
after  the  improvements  have  been  made.^^ 

§  294.  Proceeds  of  sale — Surplus. — In  the  hearing  for  an 
order  of  distribution  of  surplus,  all  claims  whether  legal  or 
equitable  should  be  considered,^ ^  and  the  same  adjudged  to  the 
person  entitled  thereto.^'^   An  order  directing  the  surplus  to  be  paid 


iiChauncey  v.  Dyke  Bros.,  119 
Fed.  1,  55  C.  C.  A.   579. 

12  See   §   151  et  seq. 

13  Priority,  see  §  164. 
i^Howett  V.  Selby,  54  111.  151; 

Raymond  v.  Ewing,  26  111.  329; 
North  Presbyterian  Church  v. 
Jevne,  32  111.  314,  83  Am.  Dec.  261. 
Acts  Ark.  1895,  p.  217,  §  3,  pro- 
vides that  a  mechanic's  lien  shall 
attach  to  the  buildings  in  prefer- 
ence to  any  prior  incumbrances 
existing  on  the  land;  provided, 
however,  that,  where  the  prior 
incumbrance  was  executed  to 
raise  money  with  which  to  make 
such  improvements,  then  the  lien 
should  be  prior  to  the  lien  given 
by  the  act.  Section  10  provides 
that  contractors  for  the  erection 
of  improvements  must,  on  re- 
quest, furnish  to  a  mortgagee  a 
full  list  of  the  claims  of  those 
laboring    on    an    improvement    or 


furnishing  materials  therefor.  A 
mortgage  was  executed  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  money  for 
improvements,  but  only  a  portion 
thereof  went  to  pay  for  labor  or 
material,  the  balance  being 
turned  over  to  the  mortgagor 
who  diverted  it  from  such  pur- 
pose. On  a  distribution  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  property,  the 
value  of  the  land  on  which  the 
mortgage  was  an  undoubted 
prior  lien,  should  be  applied  pro 
rata  to  the  pajTnent  of  both  por- 
tions of  the  mortgage.  Chauncey 
V.  Dyke  Bros.,  119  Fed.  1,  55  C. 
C.   A.   579. 

15  Bradley  v.  Simpson,  93  111. 
93.  Whitenack  v.  Noe,  11  N.  J. 
Eq.  413.  Where  the  material  was 
put  on  while  in  possession  of 
vendee,  the  lien  was  prior  to  ven- 
dor's lien.  Andry  v.  Guvol,  13  La. 
(O.  S.)   8. 


685 


PROCEEDS  OF  SALE SURPLUS. 


294 


to  one  not  an  owner  of  the  premises  is  erroneous. ^^  Where  the  ac- 
tion is  by  a  subcontractor,  the  principal  contractor  is  entitled  to 
that  part  of  the  surplus  which  will  remain  w^ithin  the  contract 
price. ^^ 

§  295.  Appeal  and  error. — The  question  whether  proceed- 
ings of  a  lower  court  may  be  reviewed  by  some  higher  court, 
and  the  manner  of  such  review,  are  controlled  by  the  pro- 
cedure and  laws  of  the  state  in  which  the  action  is  pending, 
and  it  will  be  necessary  for  the  inquirer  carefully  to  scrutinize 
the  laws  of  the  state  in  reference  to  such  matters,  as  appellate 
courts  generally  construe  the  right  of  appeal  strictly  and  re- 
quire a  strict  performance  of  the  conditions  laid  down  by  the 
statute  granting  the  right.     In  matters  relating  to  mechanics' 


Rent  paid  out  of  proceeds. — A 

lease  stipulated  that  at  the  end 
of  the  term  the  lessee  might  re- 
move his  improvements,  provided 
the  same  should,  if  removed,  be 
subject  to  distraint  for  the  rent 
in  like  manner  as  personal  prop- 
erty and  as  if  still  on  the  prem- 
ises. The  lessee  erected  a  build- 
ing thereon  for  which  mechanics' 
liens  were  filed,  and  under  which 
the  leasehold  was  sold  and  the 
buildings  removed  by  the  sheriff's 
vendee.  The  lessor  was  entitled 
to  have  his  rent  paid  out  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  sale.  Schenley's 
Appeal,    70    Pa.    St.    98. 

16  Crombie  v.  Rosentock,  19 
Abb.  N.  Cas.   (N.  Y.)   312. 

17  The  Ohio  Sav.  &  Loan  Co.  v. 
Johnson,  20  Ohio  C.  Ct.  96;  Tram- 
mell  V.  Mount,  68  Tex.  210,  4  S. 
W.  377,  2  Am.  St.  479.  Pending 
a  dispute  between  the  owners  of 
premises  and  the  holders  of  me- 
chanics'     liens      thereon      as      to 


whether  or  not  certain  machines 
were  fixtures  and  subject  to  the 
lien,  the  premises,  including  the 
machinery,  were  sold  under  a 
mortgage  to  which  they  were 
subject,  and  a  surplus  was  left 
over.  On  deciding  that  they  were 
not  fixtures,  and  not,  therefore, 
subject  to  the  lien,  that  the  own- 
ers of  the  premises  were  not  en- 
titled to  receive  out  of  the  sur- 
plus the  full  value  of  the  ma- 
chines at  the  time  they  were  sold, 
regardless  of  whether  or  not  the 
premises  sold  for  full  value,  but 
should  receive  an  equitable  pro- 
portion with  regard  to  the  de- 
preciation of  the  whole  property 
in  the  sale.  Case  v.  Arnett,  26 
N.  J.  Eq.  459. 

18  Woodburn  v.  Gifford,  66  111. 
285. 

13  Flaherty  v.  Atlantic  Lumber 
Co.,  58  N.  J.  Eq.  467,  44  Atl.  186. 
Where  an  undivided  moiety  of 
real  estate  (held  under  articles  of 


§295] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


686 


liens  and  proceedings  to  recover  moneys  due  a  material  man 
or  contractor,  the  right  to  review  in  the  form  of  appeal  and 
error  generally  exists,^  yet  it  does  so,  it  may  be  repeated,  only 
by  some  statutory  provision  to  that  efifect,  and  in  the  absence 
of  a  statute  granting  such  right,  the  parties  are  bound  by  the 
decision  of  the  original  court.-  In  some  states,  the  question 
whether  the  case  can  be  brought  in  review  in  an  appellate 
court  by  appeal  or  by  error,  depends  upon  the  fact  whether 
the  action  is  regarded  as  one  at  common  law  or  in  equity.^ 


agreement  and  to  be  paid  for  in 
installments)  was  contracted  for 
by  one  who  paid  a  portion  of  the 
purchase  money,  but  was  pre- 
vented from  paying  the  balance 
and  receiving  his  title  by  a  ju- 
dicial sale  of  the  whole  property 
under  mechanics'  liens  which 
were  on  it  at  the  time  of  the  con- 
tract, on  distribution  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  sale  it  was  held  that 
the  contract  and  payment  by  the 
purchaser  of  the  undivided 
moiety  made  him  an  owner  in 
equity  to  the  extent  of  the  money 
paid,  and  that  the  sheriff's  sale 
converted  the  interests  of  both 
owners  into  money,  substituting 
an  ownership  of  money,  instead 
of  land.  Barnes's  Appeal,  46  Pa. 
St.  350. 

Purchaser  of  Premises. — De- 
fendant entered  into  a  verbal 
contract  for  the  purchase  of  land, 
paying  part  of  the  purchase  price 
in  cash,  the  balance  to  be  paid 
in  90  days.  Before  the  expira- 
tion of  the  90  days  he  erected  a 
dwelling  house  on  the  land.  He 
failed  to  pay  the  balance  of  the 
purchase  money.  In  an  action  to 
foreclose  mechanics'  liens  on  the 


property  it  was  held  that  the 
property  would  be  sold  as  upon 
execution,  and  the  proceeds  ap- 
plied; first,  to  the  payment  of 
the  amount  due  on  the  centract 
of  purchase,  with  legal  interest; 
and,  second,  to  the  payment  of 
the  liens  on  said  property,  the 
remainder,  if  any,  to  the  pur- 
chaser, but  in  case  there  was  not 
sufficient  after  paying  the  pur- 
chase price  to  satisfy  the  liens, 
then  the  lienholders  would  be 
paid  pro  rata.  Irish  v.  Lundin, 
28  Neb.  84,  44  N.  W.   80. 

1  Dickson  v.  Corbett,  10  Nev. 
439;  French  v.  Bauer,  11  N.  Y. 
Supp.  703,  34  N.  Y.  St.  15;  Mc- 
Allister V.  Case,  7  N.  Y.  Supp. 
600,  27  N.  Y.  St.  813;  Knowlton  v. 
Smith,  163  Ind.  294,  71  N.  E.  895. 

2  Clark  v.  Raymond,  26  Mich. 
415;  American  Brick  &  Tile  Co. 
V.  Drinkhouse,  59  N.  J.  L.  462,  36 
Atl.  1034;  Dunn  v.  Kanmacker, 
26  Ohio  St.  497;  O'Connell  v. 
Smith,  101  Wis.  68,  76  N.  W. 
1116. 

3  Dickson  v.  Corbett.  10  Nev. 
439;  Idaho,  &c.  Land  Imp.  Co.  v. 
Bradbury,  132  U.  S.  509,  33  L.  ed. 
433,  10  Sup.  Ct.  177. 


687 


APPEAL   AND   ERROR. 


[§295 


If  the  proceeding  is  at  common  law,  and  was  tried  by  a  jury, 
then  it  can  only  be  taken  vip  on  error.  If  it  is  equitable  and 
tried  by  the  court,  then  by  appeal.^  On  appeal,  the  case  is 
heard  anew,  but  on  error,  only  upon  the  evidence  and  law 
as  preserved  in  a  bill  of  exceptions  from  the  court  below. 
Either  method,  however,  involves  a  careful  consideration  and 
a  close  following  of  the  statute  granting  the  right.  No  gen- 
eral rules  can  otherwise  be  given  as  the  statutes  of  no  two 
states  are  alike.  Where  the  matter  lies  in  the  discretion  of 
the  lower  court,  it  is  a  general  principle  that  a  finding  of  that 
court  will  not  be  disturbed  on  review  or  appeal,  unless  an 
abuse  of  this  discretion  is  shown. -^  While  a  higher  court  can 
not  increase  the  amount  allowed  below,  yet  it  is  the  practice 
of  that  court  sometimes  to  require  a  remittitur,  decreasing  the 
amount  and  afihrming  the  decision  for  the  lower  amount.'* 

§  296.   Methods  of  preserving  questions  for  review — Notice. — 

As  a  general  rule,  where  the  court  has  jurisdiction,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  sufficiency  of  the  petition  must  be  raised  in  the 
court   below. ^      If   it   is   claimed   that  some  of  the   items  are 


2  Kansas. — Prairie  Lumber  Co. 
V.  Korsmeyer   (Kan.)   43  Pac.  773. 

Missouri. — ^Blunt    v.    Sheppard, 

1  Mo.   219. 

Pennsylvania — Keemer  v.  Herr, 

2  Penny  (Pa.)  175,  12  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)  90;  Carter  v.  Caldwell,  147 
Pa.  St.  370,  23  Atl.  575. 

Virginia. — Hendricks  v.  Fields, 
26  Gratt.   (Va.)   447. 

3  O'Brien  v.  Sylvester,  12  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  408. 

4  Allen  V.  Elwert,  29  Ore.  428, 
44  Pac.  823,  48  Pac.  54. 

1  California. — Coss  v.  MacDon- 
ough,  111  Cal.  662,  44  Pac.  325; 
Russ  Lumber,  &c.  Co.  v.  Garrett- 
son,  87  Cal.  589,  25  Pac.  747. 


Illinois. — Brown  v.  Lowell,  79 
111.  484. 

Indiana. — Lengelsen  v.  Mc- 
Gregor, 162  Ind.  258,  67  N.  E.  524, 
70  N.  E.   248. 

Oklahoma. — El  Reno  Electric 
Light,  &c.  Co.  V.  Jennison,  5  Okla. 
759,  50  Pac.  144.  In  an  action  to 
foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien  which 
was  discharged  by  giving  bond, 
an  objection  that  the  complaint 
was  defective  in  failing  to  allege 
an  assignment  of  a  bond  by  the 
county  clerk,  or  that  any  leave 
to  sue  on  the  bond,  or  that  the 
sureties  were  approved,  cannot 
be  raised  for  the  first  time  on  ap- 
peal. D'Andre  v.  Zimmermann, 
17    Misc.    (N.    Y.)    357,    39    N.    Y. 


296] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


688 


non-lienable,2  or  that  the  material  was  not  used  in  the  build- 
ing,2  or  that  there  is  a  non-joinder  of  parties,^  or  that  the 
notice  for  the  lien  is  insufficient,^  or  that  the  ownership  of 
property  is  not  shown,*^  or  that  the  notice  is  improperly  veri- 
fied/ or  that  the  affidavit  is  improper,*  or  that  the  complaint 
was  tried  by  a  court  at  law,  when  it  should  have  been  in  a 
court  of  equity,^  or  that  the  proof  fails  to  show  the  existence 
of  the  lien,^'^  or  that  the  contract  was  invalid,^^  or  that  the 


Supp.  1086.  An  objection  to  a  re- 
covery in  an  action  to  enforce  a 
statutory  mechanic's  lien,  that 
the  land  involved,  comprising  a 
part  of  two  city  lots,  was  not 
proved  not  to  exceed  one  acre  in 
area,  is  not  available  on  appeal, 
if  not  raised  in  the  trial  court. 
Egan  V.  Menard,  32  Minn.  273,  20 
N.  W.  197.  In  an  action  by  a 
building  contractor,  defendant 
cannot  for  the  first  time  on  ap- 
peal complain  that  the  plans  and 
specifications  referred  to  in  the 
contract  set  out  in  the  complaint, 
and  introduced  in  evidence,  were 
not  attached  to  or  made  a  part 
thereof,  and  hence  that  the  con- 
tract was  not  in  its  entirety  filed 
for  record,  as  required  by  statute. 
White  V.  Fresno  Nat.  Bank,  98 
Cal.  166,  32  Pac.  979. 

2  Emerson  v.  Gainey,  26  Fla. 
133,  7  So.  526;  Schulenburg,  &c.. 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Strimple,  33  Mo. 
App.  154. 

3  Duignan  v.  Montana  Club,  16 
Mont.  189,  40  Pac.  294. 

4  Duignan  v.  Montana  Club,  16 
Mont.  189,  40  Pac.  294. 

>''  Phoenix  Iron  Co.  v.  The  Rich- 
mond, 6  Mackey  (D.  C.)  ISO; 
Ford   V.    Springer    Land   Assn.,    8 


X.  Mex.  37,  41  Pac.  541.  A  party 
cannot  present  in  the  Supreme 
Court  a  matter  of  exception  not 
presented  in  the  court  below. 
Hause  v.  Carroll,  37  Mo.  578. 

6  Dixon  v.  La  Farge,  1  E.  D. 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  722. 

7  Moore  v.  McLaughlin,  66  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  133,  21  N.  Y.  Supp.  55; 
Boyd  V.  Bassett,  16  N.  Y.  Supp. 
10,  61  Hun  (N.  Y.)  624  (without 
opinion). 

8  Shenandoah  Valley  R.  Co.  v. 
Miller.  80  Va.  821. 

^  Hildebrandt  v.  Savage,  4 
Wash.  524,  30  Pac.  643,  32  Pac. 
109. 

i'>  McGlauflin  v.  Wormser,  28 
Mont.  177,  72  Pac.  428;  Mowbray 
v.  Levy,  85  App.  Div.  (N.  Y.)  68, 
82  N.  Y.  Supp.  959. 

Has  personal  security. — After 
judgment  foreclosing  a  me- 
chanic's lien  claimed  under  Code, 
§  1979,  defendant  cannot  object 
that  plaintiff  failed  to  allege  and 
prove  that  he  had  taken  no  per- 
sonal security  for  his  debt.  Royal 
V.  McPhail,  97  Ga.  457,  25  S.  E. 
512. 

11  Sherry  v.  Madler,  123  Wis. 
621,  101  X.  W.  1095. 


689 


ERROR. 


296 


material  was  not  furnished  within  the  time  Hmit — these  are  ques- 
tions that  must  be  raised  in  the  lower  court,  or  they  will  not  after- 
wards be  considered.^2  However,  if  the  lower  court  has  no 
jurisdiction  of  the  subject  matter,  this  question  may  be  raised 
at  any  time.^^  The  various  statutes  mark  out  the  method  to 
be  pursued  to  transfer  a  cause  from  one  court  to  another 
and  that  must  be  strictly  followed.^^  The  judgment  wall  not 
be  stayed  unless  bond  is  given  as  the  statute  provides.^' 
Where  the  nature  of  the  law  and  the  rights  of  the  parties  arc 
such  that  the  rights  of  all  must  be  construed,  in  order  to  de- 
termine the  rights  of  those  appealing,  the  court  will  consider 
the  rights  of  all,  although  all  are  not  appealing  from  the 
decision  of  the  lower  court. ^^  All  persons  who  are  parties  and 
would  be  affected  by  the  order  of  the  appellate  court,  are 
entitled  to  notice  or  service  of  appeal  or  error.^^ 


12  Hess  V.  Peck,  111  111.  App. 
111. 

13  United  States  Mortgage  & 
Trust  Co.  V.  Wood,  19  Ohio  C.  C. 
358,   10   Ohio  Cir.   Dec.  324. 

14  Sweet  V.  James,  2  R.  I.  270. 
Appeal  to  U.  S.  Court. — On  an 

appeal  from  a  territorial  court  to 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court 
in  an  action  to  enforce  a  me- 
chanic's lien,  the  bond,  to  act  as 
sepersedeas,  should  be  executed 
to  the  appellees,  conditioned  to 
prosecute  the  appeal  to  effect  or 
be  answerable  in  damages,  and 
should  provide  for  an  amount  to 
secure  the  liens  recovered,  the 
costs  of  suit,  just  damages  for 
delay  and  detention  of  the  prop- 
erty, and  costs  and  interest  on 
appeal.  Mason  v.  Germaine,  1 
Mont.  279. 

15  Central  Lumber,  &c.  Co.  v. 
Center,  107  Cal.  193,  40  Pac.  334; 
Julien  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Hurley,  11 


Iowa  520;  State  v.  Super.  Ct.  of 
Snohomish  County,  11  Wash.  366, 
39  Pac.  644. 

16  Gray  v.  Havemeyer,  53  Fed. 
174,  3  C.  C.  A.  497,  10  U.  S.  App. 
456. 

17  Cotes  V.  Carroll,  28  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  436;  Hiscock  v.  Phelps,  2 
Lans.  (N.  Y.)  106.  Executors  ad- 
verse. Barnhart  v.  Edwards,  111 
Cal.  428,  44  Pac.  160.  But  unless 
adversely  affected,  notice  need 
not  be  given.  Green  v.  Berge, 
105  Cal.  52,  38  Pac.  539,  45  Am. 
St.  25.  Defendant  contractor. 
Lancaster  v.  Maxwell,  103  Cal.  67, 
36  Pac.  951,  37  Pac.  207.  Owner 
of  undivided  interest.  De  Arnaz 
V.  Jaynes  (Cal.)  34  Pac.  223. 
Grantor  of  premises.  Chase  v. 
Christenson,  92  Iowa,  405,  60  N. 
W.  640. 

Who  are  adverse. — The  adverse 
party,  on  whom  a  notice  of  ap- 
peal    is     served,     is     the     party 


44 


§297 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN, 


690 


§  297.  Proceedings  and  record — Appeal  or  error. — The  rec- 
ord must  be  made  up  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  statute 
relating"  to  appeals  and  errors,  and  unless  so  done  the  higher 
court  will  not  consider  the  case.^  A  party  who  is  not  affected 
prejudicially  by  the  order  is  not  entitled  to  allege  errors.^  If 
the  contractor  should  fail  to  recover  on  his  lien,  having  yet 


whether  plaintiff  or  defendant, 
whose  interests  in  the  question 
sought  to  be  raised  on  the  appeal 
are  adverse  to  appellant's.  Frost 
V.  St.  Paul  Banking  &  Inv.  Co., 
57  Minn.  325,  59  N.  W.  308.  Exe- 
cutors adverse.  Cotes  v.  Smith, 
31  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  146.  Inter- 
venor.  Gray's  Harbor  Com- 
mercial Co.  V.  Wotten,  14  Wash. 
87,  43  Pac.  1095.  Joint  makers 
of  a  mortgage,  against  whom  both 
a  personal  judgment  and  one  of 
foreclosure  were  entered  jointly, 
are  adverse  parties  and  notice  of 
appeal  by  one  must  be  served  on 
the  other.  Jones  v.  Quantrell,  2 
Idaho  141,  9  Pac.  418. 

1  Colorado. — Clear  Creek  Gold 
&  Silver  Min.  Co.  v.  Root,  1  Colo. 
374. 

Illinois. — Culver  v.  Schroth,  153 
111.  437,  39  N.  E.  115;  Ross  v. 
Derr,  18  111.  245;  Bonnell  v.  Lewis, 
3  HI.  App.  283. 

Michigan. — Roberts  v.  Miller, 
31  Mich.  73. 

3  Illinois.— Martin  v.  Swift,  120 
111.  488,  12  N.  E.  201. 

Indiana. — ^Vigo  Real  Estate  Co. 
v.  Reese,  21  Ind.  App.  20,  51  N. 
E.  350;  Moelering  v.  Smith,  7  Ind. 
App.   451,  34  N.  E.   675. 

Minnesota. — IMenzel  v.  Tubbs, 
51  Minn.  364,  53  N.  W.  653,  1017, 
17   L.  R.  A.   815. 


Texas. — Red  River  County  Bank 
v.  Higgins,  72  Tex.  66,  9  S.  W. 
745. 

Contractor  on  public  buildings. 

— In  an  action  by  a  subcontractor 
for  the  erection  of  a  county  court 
house  against  the  contractor,  in 
which  the  county  is  joined  as  a 
party  defendant,  and  a  lien  on 
the  court  house  is  sought  to  be 
established,  if  the  county  suffers 
default,  and  a  decree  is  entered 
foreclosing  the  lien,  it  will  not 
prejudice  the  rights  of  the  con- 
tractor, and  will  not  be  available 
on  his  writ  of  error  from  a  judg- 
ment against  him  also.  Loonie  v. 
Burt,  80  Tex.  582,  16  S.  W.  439. 

>'ot  prejudicial. — Where  plain- 
tiff fails  to  prove  every  other  fact 
necessary  to  establish  his  right 
to  a  mechanic's  lien,  the  exclu- 
sion of  a  lien  paper  presented 
by  him  is  not  prejudicial.  O'Shea 
v.  O'Shea,  91  Mo.  App.  221. 

Party  in  default. — A  party 
against  whom  a  petition  in  a  pro- 
ceeding to  enforce  a  mechanic's 
lien  has  prayed  a  discovery  of  his 
and  another  defendant's  respec- 
tive interests,  but  both  of  whom 
have  failed  to  answer  and  been 
defaulted,  cannot  complain.  Gould 
V.  Garrison,  48  111.  258. 

Does  not  show  relation. — A  de- 
cree   against  the   owner  will   not 


691  APPEAL  AND  ERROR.  [§  298 

the  right  to  recover  personally,  he  would  be  interested  and  en- 
titled to  appeal.'*  But  unless  the  record  contains  all  of  the 
evidence,  the  reviewing  court  will  not  set  aside  the  finding 
because  of  insufficiency. ^  Error  will  not  lie  to  rulings  on 
questions  that  are  immaterial^  or  not  in  issue."  How- 
ever, if  in  determining  the  rights  of  others,  it  is 
necessary  to  determine  the  right  of  the  claimant,  his 
rights  would  be  determined  necessarily  with  the  rights 
of  others.^  But  a  contractor  cannot  be  said  to  be  af- 
fected by  a  judgment  affecting  merely  the  premises,  no  per- 
sonal judgment  having  been  rendered,^  nor  complain  of  er- 
rors,^^  affecting  only  others, ^^  or  those  he  has  waived. ^^  And 
when  he  does  not  appeal  he  cannot  on  the  appeal  of  the  prop- 
erty owner  raise  new  questions. ^^ 

§  298.  Error  and  appeal — Miscellaneous. — Error  will  not  be 
presumed,  it  must  be  shown,i  and  on  error  or  appeal,  it  is  pre- 
sumed that  the  proceedings  in  the  court  below  were  regular 
and  according  to  law,  and  that  sufficient  evidence  had  been 
given  to  sustain  the  decree.^  Just  what  questions  a  review- 
be  reversed  for  failure  to  serve  S.  E.  849;  Price  v.  Sanford,  112 
certain  defendants,  where  it  does  N.  Car.  660,  16  S.  E.  850. 
not  appear  what  relation  they  9  Hartman  v.  Sharp,  51  Mo.  29 ; 
sustained  to  the  subject-matter  Kruger  v.  Braender,  3  Misc.  (N. 
of  the  suit.  Branham  v.  Nye,  9  Y.)  275,  23  N.  Y.  Supp.  324. 
Colo.   App.   19,  47  Pac.   402.  lo  Hendricks      v.      Fields,       26 

4  Murdock  v.  Jones,  3  App.  Div.      Gratt.   (Va.)  447. 

(N.  Y.)    221,  38  N.  Y.  Supp.   461;  n  Clarkson    v.    Louderback,    36 

Kruger  v.   Braender,   3   Misc.    (N.  Fla.  660,  19  So.  887. 

Y.)  375,  23  N.  Y.  Supp.  324.  i2  Sharpe  v.  Spengler,  48  Miss. 

5  Lonkey  v.  Wells,  16  Nev.  271.  360. 

6  Morse-Williams    &    Co.    v.   El-  13  Hall  v.  New  York,  79  N.   Y. 
lis,  172  Mass.  378,  52  N.  E.  540.  Supp.    979,    79    App.    Div.    (N.   Y.) 

7  Zarrs  v.  Keck,  40  Neb.  456,  58  102;    Morgan   v.    Taylor,   15    Daly 
N.  W.   933.  (N.  Y.)  304,  5  N.  Y.  Supp.  920. 

8  Downey    v.    O'Donnell,    92    111.  i  Richardson     v.      Warwick,      7 
559;   Lepin  v.  Paine,  18  Neb.  629,  How.    (Miss.)    131. 

26    N.    W.    370;    Lookout    Lumber  2  Johnson  v.  Otto,  105  Iowa  605, 

Co.  V.  Sanford,  112  N.  Car.  655,  16      75    N.    W.    492;    Cole     v.     Custer 


298] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF  LIEN. 


692 


ing  court  will  consider,  will  of  course  depend  upon  the  law 
of  the  forum,  and  where  questions  of  fact  will  not  be  reviewed,^ 
the  determination  of  what  is  a  question  of  fact,'*  becomes  ma- 
terial. A  conclusion  of  law  is  not  a  finding  of  fact.^  If  the 
evidence  is  ample,''  or  is  conflicting  the  decision  of  the  lower 
court  will  be  sustained."  So  likewise,  if  the  error  is  harmless.* 
Under  the  procedure  in  some  jurisdictions  when  the  appellate 
court  finds  that  there  has  been  some  error,  the  error  will  be 
corrected    and    judgment    rendered    accordingly.^      In    other 


County  Agricultural,  &c.  Assn.,  3 
S.  Dak.  272,  52  N.  W.  1086. 

3  Sexton  V.  Weaver,  141  Mass. 
273,  6  N.  E.  367. 

4  Gpnnon  v.  Shepard,  156  Mass. 
355,  31  N.  E.   296. 

5  Pierce  v.  Willis,  103  Cal.  91, 
36  Pac.  1080. 

Mixed  Questions. — Whether  a 
furnace  and  cistern  were  fur- 
nished for  erecting,  altering,  or 
repairing  a  house,  so  that  a  lien 
attaches  for  the  price,  is  a  mixed 
question  of  law  and  fact;  and 
therefore  a  referee's  decision 
thereon  will  not  ordinarily  be  dis- 
turbed, unless  he  misapplied  the 
law.  Kent  v.  Brown,  59  N.  H. 
236. 

6  Howell  V.  Wise,  28  Neb.  756, 
44  N.  W.  1139. 

7  Willard  v.  Magoon,  30  INIich. 
273;  Lutz  v.  Ely,  3  E.  D.  Smith 
(N.  Y.)  621,  3  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
475;  Dunbar  v.  Washington 
Foundry  &  Mach.  Co.,  210  Pa.  St. 
58,   59   Atl.   434. 

8  Murphy  v.  Valk,  30  S.  Car.  262, 
9  S.  E.  101;  McConnell  v.  Worns, 
102  Ala.  587,  14  So.  849. 

Instances. — The  judgment  in  a 
mechanic's  lien  case  directed  sale 


of  the  premises,  instead  of  the 
right,  title,  and  interest  of  the  de- 
fendant therein.  Was  harmless. 
McCormack  v.  Phillips,  4  Dak. 
506,  34  N.  W.  39.  Elliott,  Supp. 
§  1691  (Acts  1883,  p.  141),  re- 
quires the  recorder  to  record  the 
notice  of  lien  in  the  "Miscellane- 
ous Record,"  but  it  was  entered 
in  what  was  called  the  "Me- 
chanic's Lien  Record."  It  was 
erroneous  to  admit  in  evidence 
this  entry,  as  no  "mechanic's  lien 
record"  was  authorized  by  law, 
but  that  the  error  was  harmless, 
since  the  lien  was  acquired  by  fil- 
ing the  notice,  and  not  by  its  rec- 
ord. Adams  v.  Shaffer,  132  Ind. 
331,  31  N.  E.  1108.  In  a  suit  by 
certain  subcontractors,  the 
court's  refusal  to  permit  the 
owner  to  show  how  much  he  had 
paid  other  subcontractors  was 
not  material  error,  where  it  was 
not  shown  that  the  whole  amount 
would  be  more  than  the  contract 
price.  Sharon  Town  Co.  v.  Mor- 
ris, 39  Kan.  377,  18  Pac.  230. 

9  A  judgment  erroneously  gave 
a  subcontractor  a  mechanic's  lien 
on  more  than  one  acre  of  land 
used  in  connection  with  the  build- 


693 


ERROR — COSTS. 


[§299 


jurisdictions  the  proper  procedure  is  to  remand  the  cause  back 
for  a  new  trial. i**  In  other  cases,  where  the  remand  would  be 
futile,  the  action  will  be  finally  dismissed. ^^  Where  a  case  is 
appealed  and  judgment  is  vacated,  such  vacation  acts  upon  all 
the  parties  against  whom  it  was  rendered,  especially  if  they 
were  jointly  interested. ^2 

§  299.  Costs. — It  is  a  general  rule,  that  the  costs  are  entitled 
to  be  paid  out  of  the  proceeds  arising  from  the  sale  of  the 
premises, 1    and    under    some    statutes,    this    will    include    the 


ings  erected  thereon.  On  the 
trial  it  was  proved  without  dis- 
pute that  the  principal  building, 
considerably  exceeding  all  the 
others  in  cost  and  value  was  lo- 
cated on  the  west  one  acre  of  the 
entire  tract.  The  court,  on  ap- 
peal, would  correct  the  judgment, 
and  limit  the  lien  to  the  west  one 
■acre.  Dusick  v.  Meiselbach,  118 
Wis.  240,  95  N.  W.  144. 

10  Crawford  v.  O'Connor,  73  N. 
Y.  600;  O'Donnell  v.  Rosenberg, 
14  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  S.)  (N.  Y.)  59; 
Sullivan  v.  Johns,  5  Whart.  (Pa.) 
366;  Brewer  v.  Hugg,  114  Iowa 
486,  87  N.  W.  409. 

11  Where  it  appeared  on  appeal 
from  a  judgment  foreclosing  a 
mechanic's  lien  against  com- 
munity property  that  service  was 
had  on  the  wife,  but  not  upon  the 
husband,  and  the  eight  months 
allowed  by  Ballinger's  Ann.  Codes 
&  St.  5908,  for  bringing  suit  on 
such  lien  had  expired,  the  action 
should  be  dismissed;  since,  the 
statutory  limitation  having  ex- 
pired, no  new  action  could  be 
brought  upon  the  claim,  it  being 


necessary  to  commence  the  action 
against  both  of  the  community 
within  the  statutory  period. 
Powell  V.  Nolan,  27  Wash.  318,  67 
Pac.   712,  68   Pac.  389. 

12  Bruce  Lumber  Co.  v.  Hoos, 
67  Mo.  App.  264. 

iWliere  prior  incumbrancer  is 
purchaser. — Where,  in  an  action 
to  foreclose  a  mechanic's  lien,  a 
mortgagee  having  a  prior  lien  was 
summoned  in  as  required  by  Gen. 
Laws,  c.  206,  §  10,  and  purchased 
the  property  at  the  master's  sale 
for  less  than  the  mortgage  debt, 
he  is  entitled  to  the  proceeds  of 
the  sale,  and  should  not  be  re- 
quired to  pay  any  of  the  costs 
of  the  proceeding,  other  than  the 
expense  of  the  sale,  under  section 
13,  providing  that  the  costs  shall 
be  within  the  discretion  of  the 
court.  Jepherson  v.  Green,  24  R. 
I.  83,  52  Atl.  808.  The  master's 
fees  in  a  successful  proceeding 
for  a  mechanic's  lien  are  proper- 
ly charged  to  the  owner  of  the 
building.  Montonya  v.  Reilly,  184 
111.  183,  56  N.  E.  425. 


299] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


694 


money  paid  for  filing  and  recording-  the  lien,^  but  not  unless 
it  is  necessary  so  to  do  and  the  statute  so  provides.^  In 
some  states,  attorney  fees  for  foreclosure  of  the  suit  are  in- 
cluded.'* There  is  some  conflict  upon  the  question  whether 
such  statutes  are  valid. ^     Where  such  fees  are  allowed,  they 


2  Mulcahy  v.  Buckley,  100  Cal. 
484,  35  Pac.  144. 

3  Young  V.  Borzone,  26  Wash. 
4,  66  Pac.  135,  421.  A  master 
who  incurs  expenses  by  having 
drawn  up  a  notice  of  sale,  etc., 
before  the  time  limited  for  the  re- 
demption of  property  has  expired, 
does  so  at  his  own  risk,  and  can- 
not recover  back  such  expenses, 
if  the  mechanics'  liens  for  which 
the  sale  was  to  be  made  are  paid 
before  the  expiration  of  the  time 
limited  for  redemption.  Neher  v. 
Crawford,  10  N.  Mex.  725,  65  Pac. 
156. 

■1  Williams  v.  Gaston,  127  Cal. 
641,  60  Pac.  427;  Mulcahy  v. 
Buckley,  100  Cal.  484,  35  Pac.  144; 
Lee  v.  Kimball,  45  Wash.  656,  88 
Pac.  1121;  Davis  v.  Rittenhouse 
&  Embree  Co.,  92  111.  App.  341. 
Fixed  by  statute  at  10  per  cent, 
mandatory.  Kalina  v.  Steinmeyer, 
103  111.  App.  502.  Only  al- 
lowed in  trial  court.  West 
V.  Badger  Lumber  Co.,  56  Kan. 
287,  43  Pac.  239;  Murray  v.  Swan- 
son,  18  Mont.  533,  46  Pac.  441. 
When  mechanics'  liens  are  con- 
solidated, all  the  claimants  to- 
gether constitute  the  "prevailing 
party"  and  but  one  attorney's  fee 
can  be  taxed.  Allis  v.  INIeadow 
Spring  Distilling  Co.,  67  Wis.  16, 
29  N.  W.  543,  30  N.  W.  300. 
Counsel  fees  actually  paid  are  to 


be  included  among  the  "actual 
disbursements,"  whether  or  not 
the  counsel  is  a  solicitor  in  the 
cause.  Robock  v.  Peters,  13  Mani- 
toba 124. 

5  "While  it  is  true  there  is  some 
conflict  of  authority  upon  the 
validity  of  such  a  statute,  we 
think  the  later  authorities  have 
one  trend,  and  that  is  to  maintain 
such  a  provision  in  statutes  simi- 
lar to  our  lien  laws.  Such  pro- 
visions have  been  upheld  by  the 
courts  of  California  with  great 
unanimity,  and  the  same  rule  ob- 
tains in  Montana.  Hicks  v.  Mur- 
ray, 43  Cal.  515;  Quale  v.  Moon, 
48  Cal.  478;  Rapp  v.  Spring  Val- 
ley Gold  Co.,  74  Cal.  532,  16  Pac. 
325;  Mclntyre  v.  Trautner,  78 
Cal.  449,  21  Pac.  15;  Wortman  v. 
Kleinschmidt,  12  Mont.  316,  30 
Pac.  280."  Griffith  v.  Maxwell, 
20  Wash.  403,  55  Pac.  571.  These 
extra  costs  imposed  upon  a  de- 
fendant in  this  class  of  cases  un- 
der our  statute  are  allowed  as  a 
penalty  for  not  paying  his  honest 
debts  and  to  reimburse  the  plain- 
tiff for  the  prosecution  of  his  ac- 
tion. Statutes  similar  to  our  own 
providing  for  allowance  of  attor- 
ney's fees  have  been  upheld  in 
the  following  cases:  Genest  v. 
Las  Vegas  IMasonic  Bldg.  Assn., 
11  N.  Mex.  251,  67  Pac.  743; 
Armijo  v.  Mountain  Electric  Co., 


695 


COSTS — ATTORNEY  S    FEES. 


[§299 


are  usually  fixed  by  the  trial  court.'^  And  where  the  record 
does  not  show  them  to  be  unreasonable  they  will  be  pre- 
sumed to  be  proper  in  amount.^  It  is  generally  held,  how- 
ever, that  it  is  error  to  render  judgment  for  attorney  fees 
without  evidence  of  the  services  performed  and  their  value.^ 
A  number  of  courts,  however,  have  held  that  the  attorney's 
fee  being  in  the  nature  of  a  penalty  cannot  be  collected  as  costs 
in  the  proceedings,^  and  further  that  if  allowed,  they  can  only 


11  N.  Mex.  235,  67  Pac.  726;  Wort- 
man  V.  Kleinschmidt,  12  Mont. 
316,  30  Pac.  280;  Helena  Steam 
Heating,  &c.  Supply  Co.  v.  Wells. 
16  Mont.  65,  40  Pac.  78;  Griffith 
V.  Maxwell,  20  Wash.  403,  55  Pac. 
571;  Ivall  v.  Willis,  17  Wash.  645, 
50  Pac.  467;  Vogel  v.  Pekoe,  157 
111.  339,  42  N.  E.  386,  30  L.  R.  A. 
491;  Dell  v.  Marvin,  41  Fla.  221, 
26  So.  188,  79  Am.  St.  171,  45  L. 
R.  A.  201;  Cameron  v.  Chicago, 
&c.,  R.  Co.,  63  Minn.  384,  65  N. 
W.  652,  31  L.  R.  A.  553;  Dow  v. 
Beidelman,  49  Ark.  455,  5  S.  W. 
718;  Perkins  v.  St.  Louis,  &c.  R. 
Co.,  103  Mo.  52,  15  S.  W.  320,  11 
L.  R.  A.  426n;  Burlington,  &c.  R. 
Co.  V.  Dey,  82  Iowa  312,  48  N.  W. 
98,  31  Am.  St.  477,  12  L.  R.  A. 
436n.  Such  attorney's  fees  seem 
to  have  been  recognized  and  uni- 
formly sustained  in  California. 
Rapp  V.  Spring  Valley  Gold  Co., 
74  Cal.  532,  16  Pac.  325;  Mclntyre 
V.  Trautner,  78  Cal.  449,  21  Pac. 
15;  Jewell  v.  McKay,  82  Cal.  144, 
23  Pac.  139.  See  where  declared 
unconstitutional.  Robertson  v. 
Moore,  10  Idaho  115,  77  Pac.  218. 
The  later  California  decision 
seems  to  be  against  allowance. 
Donaldson  v.  Orchard  Crude  Oil 
Co.    (Cal.    App.)    92      Pac.      1046: 


Pacific     Lumber     Co.     v.     Wilson 
(Cal.  App.)  92  Pac.  654. 

6  Hill  V.  Cassidy,  24  Mont.  108, 
60  Pac.  811;  Union  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Simon,  150  Cal.  751,  89  Pac.  1077, 
1081;  Sweatt  v.  Hunt,  42  Wash. 
96,  84  Pac.  1.  Applicable  to  all 
liens,  etc.  Wortman  v.  Klein- 
schmidt, 12  Mont.  316,  30  Pac. 
280.  The  objection  that  the  judg- 
ment on  foreclosure  of  a  me- 
chanic's lien  allowed  attorney's 
fees,  without  any  evidence  of  the 
value  thereof  cannot  be  sustained 
where  the  fees  were  stipulated 
to  be  reasonable  at  the  trial. 
Greene  v.  Finnell,  22  Wash.  186, 
60  Pac.  144. 

7  Fitcl;  V.  Howitt,  32  Ore.  796, 
52  Pac.  192. 

8  Burleigh  Bldg.  Co.  v.  Mer- 
chant Brick  and  Bldg  Co.,  13  Colo. 
App.  455,  59  Pac.  83;  Gunby  v. 
Drew,  45  Fla.  350,  34  So.  305. 

9  Sickman  v.  Wollett,  31  Colo. 
58,  71  Pac.  1107.  We  desire,  how- 
ever, to  give  prominence  to  the 
idea  that  we  regard  it  as  a  con- 
trolling and  authoritative  exposi- 
tion by  our  highest  national  tri- 
bunal, which  we  ought  to  follow. 
Gulf,  &c.  R.  Co.  V.  Ellis,  165  U. 
S.  150,  17  Sup.  Ct.  255,  41  L.  ed. 
666;    Wilder    v.    Chicago,    &c.    R, 


§300] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIEN. 


696 


be  allowed  under  the  law  in  force  at  the  time  the  contract 
was  made,  and  not  the  law  in  force  at  the  time  of  suit.^*^  Costs 
generally  are  taxed  according  to  the  law  in  force  at  the  time 
of  the  taxing  of  costs. ^^  The  amount  of  the  costs  does  not 
depend  upon  the  averments  of  the  complaint/^  as  they  are 
either  fixed  by  statute,^^  or  depend  upon  the  findings  of  the 
court. ^^  The  question  of  costs  is  not  any  part  of  the  pro- 
ceedings to  enforce  the  lien  and  is  not  determined  until  the 
end  is  reached  and  then  only  as  a  sequence.^o  Generally  if 
plaintiff  is  obliged  to  bring  suit  to  secure  his  claim,  he  is  en- 
titled to  his  costs,2i  \^^i  j-jg  niust  prevail,  or  he  will  not  have 
such  right.-- 

§  300.    Attorney's  fees  under  the  Indiana  statute. — The  Indi- 
ana statute  on  the  subject  of  attorney's  fees  in  mechanic's  lien 


Co.,  70  Mich.  382,  38  N.  W.  289; 
Schut  V.  Chicago,  &c.,  R.  Co.,  70 
Mich.  433,  38  N.  W.  291;  Lafferty 
V.  Chicago,  &c.  R.  Co.,  71  Mich. 
35,  38  N.  W.  660;  Grand  Rapids 
Chair  Co.  v.  Runnels,  77  Mich.  104, 
43  N.  W.  1006;  Jolliffe  v.  Brown, 
14  Wash.  155,  44  Pac.  149,  53  Am. 
St.  868;  Hocking  Val.  Coal  Co. 
V.  Rosser,  53  Ohio  St.  12,  41  N.  E. 
263,  53  Am.  St.  622,  29  L.  R.  A. 
386;  State  v.  Fire  Creek  Coal,  &c. 
Co.,  33  W.  Va.  188,  10  S.  E.  288, 
25  Am.  St.  891,  6  L.  R.  A.  359; 
South  &  North  Alabama  R.  Co.  v. 
Morris,  65  Ala.  193;  Perkins  v. 
Boyd,  16  Colo.  App.  266,  65  Pac. 
350;  Title  Guarantee  &  Trust  Co. 
V.  Burdette,  104  Md.  666,  65  Atl. 
341;  Stimson  :\Iill  Co.  v.  Nolan, 
5  Cal.  App.  754,  91  Pac.  262; 
O'Niel  V.  Taylor,  59  W.  Va.  370, 
53  S.  E.  471. 

10  It  is  in  the  nature  of  an  ad- 
ditional incumbrance.     Kendall  v. 


Fader,   199   111.   294,   65  N.   E.   318. 

11  George  v.  Everhart,  57  Wis. 
397,  15  N.  W.  387. 

12  Pacific  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Fisher.  106  Cal.  224,  39  Pac.  758; 
Armijo  v.  Mountain  Electric  Co., 
11  N.  Mex.  235,  67  Pac.  726. 

13  Kalina  v.  Steinmeyer,  103 
111.  App.  502;  Myer  v.  Gleisner,  7 
Wis.  55. 

19  Kipp  V.  Massin,  15  111.  App. 
300.  Depending  upon  a  trial. 
Randolph  v.  Foster,  3  E.  D.  Smith 
(N.  Y.)  648,  4  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
262.  Discretion  of  the  court. 
:Marryatt  v.  Riley,  2  Abb.  N.  Cas. 
(N.  Y.)  119;  Reynolds  v.  Hamil, 
1   Code   Rep.    (N.   S.)    (N.  Y.)    230. 

20  Fargo  v.  Hamlin,  5  N.  Y.  St. 
297. 

21  Linck  V.  Johnson,  66  Pac. 
674.  134  Cal.  xix  (without 
opinion). 

22  Hooper  v.  Fletcher,  145  Cal. 
375,    79    Pac.    418;    Hess   v.    Peck, 


697 


COSTS — ATTORNEY  S    FEES. 


300 


actions  is  as  follows:  In  all  suits  brought  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  any  lien  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  if  the  plaintiff 
or  lien  holder  shall  recover  judgment  in  any  sum,  he  shall 
also  be  entitled  to  recover  reasonable  attorney's  fees,  which 
shall  be  entered  by  the  court  trying  the  same,  as  a  part  of 
the  judgment  in  said  suit.^^  The  constitutionality  of  this  sec- 
tion has  been  sustained  by  the  supreme  court.^'*  But  there  is 
no  right  to  recover  an  attorney  fee  unless  suit  is  brought  and 
a  judgment  recovered  by  the  plaintiff.^^  That  notes  have  been 
executed  for  the  debt  secured  by  the  lien  does  not  affect  the 
rig-'ht  to  an  attorney  fee  under  this  section.^*^ 

§  301.  Costs — Attorney's  fees — Miscellaneous. — Neither 
costs, ^  nor  attorney's  fees,  as  said  in  a  previous  section  are 
allowed,  unless  the  party  prevails  in  the  litigation.^  The  items 
of  ordinary  costs  are  fixed  by  statute,  and  the  amount  of  at- 
torney's fees  is  generally  such  as  the  court  deems  reasonable.^ 
Where  the  fee  rests  in  the  discretion  of  the  trial  court  it  will 


111  111.  App.  Ill;  Bird  v.  St. 
John's  Episcopal  Church,  154  Ind. 
138,  56   N.  E.   129. 

23  Burns'  R.  S.  1908,  §  8307. 

2-1  Duckwall  V.  Jones,  156  Ind. 
682,   58   N.   E.   1055,   60   N.   E.   797. 

25  Bird  V.  St.  John's  Church, 
154  Ind.  138,  56  N.  E.  129. 

26  Beach  v.  Huntsman — Ind. 
App.   — ,   83   N.   E.   1033. 

1  Bates  V.  Santa  Barbara 
County,  90  Cal.  543,  27  Pac.  438; 
Los  Angeles  Gold  Min.  Co.  v. 
Campbell,  13  Colo.  App.  1,  56  Pac. 
246;    Dell  v.  Marvin,  41  Pla.  221, 

26  So.  188,  79  Am.  St.  171n,  45  L. 
R.  A.  201. 

2  Clark  V.   Taylor,   91   Cal.    552, 

27  Pac.   860;    Mclntyre   v.   Traut- 


ner,  78  Cal.  449,  21  Pac.  15.  See 
§§  299,  300. 

3  Stimson  Mill  Co.  v.  Riley 
(Cal.)  42  Pac.  1072;  Los  Angeles 
Gold  Mine  Co.  v.  Campbell,  13 
Colo.  App.  1,  56  Pac.  246.  The 
allowance,  being  for  attorney's 
fees  "in  the  superior  and  supreme 
courts,"  does  not  include  the 
amount  paid  for  preparing  claim 
of  lien.  Mulcahy  v.  Buckley,  100 
Cal.  484,  35  Pac.  144. 

Amount  of  attorney  fees. — In  a 
consolidated  action  to  foreclose 
mechanics'  liens,  attorney's  fees 
of  $100  each,  were  allowed  to  two 
claimants  who  had  separate  at- 
torneys, and  who  filed  separate 
complaints,    and    were    adjudged 


301  ■ 


ENFORCEMENT   OF  LIEN. 


698 


not  be  disturbed  on  appeal  unless  that  discretion  is  abused.^ 
The  question  of  the  right  to  allow  fees  may  be  raised  in  the 
appellate  court. ^  Where  the  litigation  is  only  between  con- 
tractor and  owner,^  or  if  caused  by  the  owner's  fault,  the 
costs  should  come  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  whole  property.''' 
If  the  owner  is  a  mere  stakeholder,  then  the  costs  should  be 
taxed  against  the  parties  interested,  who  are  responsible  for 
the  litigation,*  or  who  should  equitably  bear  the  same.^ 

§  302.    Costs — Owner  under  disability. — Where  the  owner  is 

under  a  disability,  the  costs  caused  by  such  disability  should 


$293.23  and  $107.64  respectively. 
The  other  eight  plaintiffs  had 
other  attorneys,  and  joined  in  a 
complaint  on  claims  aggregating 
$663.02,  and  were  allowed  $100 
attorney's  fees,  to  be  apportioned 
ratably  according  to  their  several 
judgments.  The  trial  was  of  con- 
siderable length  and  some  com- 
plexity. The  allowance  of  attor- 
ney's fees  was  not  excessive. 
Sweeney  v.  Meyer,  124  Cal.  512, 
57  Pac.  479.  The  allowance  of 
$250  attorney's  fees,  in  an  action 
to  foreclose  11  mechanics'  liens, 
is  reasonable.  Jewell  v.  McKay, 
82  Cal.  144,  23  Pac.  139. 

4  Title  Guaranty,  &c.  Co.  v. 
Wrenn,  35  Ore.  62,  56  Pac.  271,  76 
Am.  St.  454. 

5  McCarthy  v.  Havis,  23  Fla. 
508,  2  So.  819. 

G  Kenney  v.  Apgar,  93  N.  Y.  539 ; 
Holler  v.  Apa,  18  N.  Y.  Supp.  588, 
47  N.  Y.  St.  485;  Morgan  v.  Ste- 
vens, 6  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  356; 
Close  V.  Hunt,  8  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
254. 


"  De  Camp  Lumber  Co.  v.  Tol- 
hurst,  99  Cal.  631,  34  Pac.  438. 
When  one  is  not  liable  upon  an 
issue  of  debt  raised  in  a  fore- 
closure of  a  mechanic's  lien,  but 
is  a  proper  party  to  the  suit  on 
the  question  of  the  right  of  fore- 
closure, and  the  suit  is  decided 
against  him  on  that  issue,  the 
costs  may  be  adjudged  against 
him  as  well  as  against  the  other 
defendant.  Lindsley  v.  Parks,  17 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  527,  43  S.  W.  277. 

s  Eagleson  v.  Clark,  2  E.  D. 
Smith  (N.  Y.)  644. 

'•>  ludiana. — Manor  v.  Heffner, 
15  Ind.  App.  299,  43  N.  E.  1011. 

Minnesota, — Menzel  v.  Tubbs, 
51  Minn.*  364,  53  N.  W.  653,  1017, 
17    L.    R.   A.    815. 

Xew  York. — Condon  v.  Church 
of  St.  Augustine,  112  App.  Div. 
(N.  Y.)  168,  98  N.  Y.  Supp.  253; 
Ottman  v.  Schenectady  Co-Opera- 
tive  Realty  Co.,  119  App.  Div.  (N. 
Y.)  736,  104  N.  Y.  Supp.  137. 

PennsylTania. — Miller  v.  Diffen- 
bach,    10    Lane.    Bar     (Pa.)     144. 


699 


OWNER  UNDER  DISABILITY. 


[§302 


not  be  charged  to  the  fund  to  the  prejudice  of  a  mechanic's 
lien.io 


10  Guardian     for    Drunkard.  — 

Where  the  estate  of  an  habitual 
drunkard,  who  has  no  personal 
estate  from  which  to  pay  the 
costs  of  the  inquisition,  is  sold 
by  order  of  the  court,  and  a  me- 
chanic has  a  lien  on  the  real  es- 


tate, the  costs  of  the  inquisition 
are  not  chargeable  to  the  fund  in 
prejudice  of  the  lienholder,  but 
all  costs  connected  with  the  sale 
are  properly  paid  therefrom.  Ma- 
lone's  Appeal,  79  Pa.  St.  481. 


INDEX 


[References  are  to  sections.l 
A 
ABANDONMENT, 

Ske  Contbact,  Pebfobmance  of  Contract. 
amount  covered  by  lien,  127. 
filing  claim  when,  97. 
lien  where  work  abandoned,  49,  64.  65. 

ABANDONMENT  OF  CONTRACT, 

See  Contract. 

evidence,  41,  49,  259. 
performance  of,  49. 

ABUTTING  LANDS, 
defined,   44. 
subject  to  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

ACCOUNT, 

See  Itemized  Account. 
defined,  116. 

verification  not  evidence  of  correctness,  119. 
what  is   verified,   119. 

ACQUISITION, 

of  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

ACTION, 

See  Foreclosure  of  Lien,  Limitation  of  Action,  Trial,  Bonds. 
by  sub-contractor  under  Indiana  statute,  291. 
form  of  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 
owner  may  require  lienholder  to  commence   suit  in   Ohio   and 

Indiana,  202,  203. 
to  foreclose,  when  to  be  brought  under  Indiana  statute,  S3, 
trial  by  court,  293,  294. 
trial  by  jury,  293,  294. 
under  Indiana  statute,  216. 
under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

when  deemed  commenced  under  Indiana  statute,  216. 
when  title  defective  under  Ohio  statute,  285. 

701 


702  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'] 
ACT  OF  GOD, 

no  defense,  207. 

ADMINISTRATOR, 

as  party  to  suit,  227. 
cannot  make  contract,  30. 

completion  of  decedent's  contract,  Ohio  statute,  38,  39. 
may  complete  contract,  25,  44. 

may  file  statement  on  death  of  principal  contractor,  Ohio  stat- 
ute, 81. 
rights  under  Ohio  statute,  38,  39. 
succeeds   to   decedent's   right,   166. 

ADMISSIBILITY  OF  EVIDENCE, 
book  accounts,  259. 

charges  for  more  than  went  into  building,  259. 
condition  of  accounts  between  owner  and  contractor,  259. 
employment  of  one  person  on,  will  not  be  shown  for  another,  259. 
irrelevant  matter,  258. 
judgment,  259. 

knowledge  of  owner  of  erection  of  building,  259. 
law  of  forum  controls,  258. 
lease,  259. 
lien  statement,   260. 
materials  sold  on  joint  account,  260. 
memorandum  of  statement,  260. 
original  contract,  259. 
parol  evidence,  259. 
pleadings,   260. 

reasonable  value  of  materials,  259. 
statement  by  subcontractor  to  contractor,  259. 
subsequent  purchaser  may  be  asked  if  refuses  to  pay  lien,  258. 
that  work  is  not  well  done,  259. 

whatever  tends  to  establish  defendant's  defense,  258. 
whatever  tends  to  establish  plaintiff's  cause,  258. 

ADJOINING  LOTS, 

separate  buildings  on,  138. 

ADVANCE   PAYMENT, 

See  Payment,  Future  Payment. 

as  estoppel,   180. 

to  principal  contractor  under  Ohio  statute,  69,  70. 


INDEX.  703 

IReferences  are  to  sections.} 
AFFIDAVIT. 

See  Verification. 

defined,  81. 

form  for  lien  under  direct  contract,  81. 

form  of  notice  of  subcontractor,  87. 

in  evidence  of  correctness  of  account,  119. 

objection  made  in  lower  court,  296. 

of  principal  contractor  under  Ohio  statute.  81. 

verification   under   Ohio   statute,   81. 

AFTER  ACQUIRED   PROPERTY, 

See  Purchaser. 

attorney's  fees  not  prior  to  lien,  162. 

building  in  place  of  one  burned,  162. 

building  when  removed,  162. 

improvements  inure  to  benefit  of,  162. 

improvements  removed,  162. 

improvements   subject  to  mechanic's   lien,   162. 

money  secured  by  mortgage  used  in  building,  162. 

prior  to  mortgage,  162. 

trade  fixtures  how  affected,  162. 

AGENCY, 

adjoining  land   owner,   not  implied,   30. 

agency  of  principal  contractor   for  owner,  49. 

authority  must  be  shown  at  time  contract  was  made,  30. 

authority   must  have   from   the   owner,   30. 

authority    to    contract    shown,    acts    not    void    because    exceeds 

amount,  30. 
averred  in  statement,  106. 

contract  made  on  credit  of  tenant  will  not  bind  another,  30. 
knowledge  not  sufficient,  31. 
leaseholder   has   not,    30. 
material  man  must  find  out,  31. 

not  presumed  from   relation  of  husband  and  wife,  31. 
partner  may  bind  partnership,  30. 
question  of,  one  of  fact  for  jury,  31. 
representation  sufficient,  31. 

tenant  in  common  cannot  bind  his  co-tenant,  30. 
when  implied,  25. 
written  authority  not  necessary  unless  statute  requires,  30. 


704  INDEX. 

IReferences  are  to  sections.l 
AGENT, 

See  Contract — Owner. 
husband  as  wife's  agent  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 
may  sign  claim,  118. 
service  of  notice  on,  74. 
service  of  subcontractor's  claim  on,  under  Ohio  statute,  62. 

AGREE.MENT, 

express  as  waiver,  173. 

AGREEMENT  OR  CONSENT  OF  OWNER. 

See  Contract. 

ALTERATION, 

what  included,  12. 

AMENDMENT, 

allowed  in  pleadings,  250. 
allowed  in  the  interest  of  justice,  123. 

amendment  of  pleading  not  allowed  if  it  states  no  cause  of  ac- 
tion, 250. 
claim  or  statement,  may  be  amended  when,  123. 
largely    in   discretion   of   court,   250. 
liberal  rule  as  to  discretion  of  court,  250. 
must  not  be  fraudulently  made,  123. 
not  allowed  to  interfere  with  intervening  rights,  123. 
of  notices  under  Indiana  statute,  S3, 
statute  must  permit  or  cannot  be  allowed,  123. 
to  findings  and  decrees,  276. 

AMENDMENT   OF   CLAIM, 

amended  statement  becomes  same  as  a  new  one,  123. 

cannot  be  amended  after  expiration  of  time  limit,  123. 

cannot  be  amended  in  pleading,  123. 

controlled  largely  by  statute,  123. 

may  be  where  no  one  injuriously  affected,  123. 

more  cannot  be  recovered  than  claimed,  123. 

must   not   be    fraudulent   when   made,    123. 

without  statutory  provision,  123. 

AMOUNT, 

abandonment  of  work,  how  affects,  129. 
all  in  a  class  share  pro  rata,  127. 
all  within  original  contract,  126. 
attaches  at  the  time  work  is  begun,  129. 


INDEX.  705 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
AMOUNT— Continued. 

change  of  ownership  does  not  affect,  129,  130. 

delivery  of  materials  may  fix  time,  130. 

depends  on  contract  between   parties,   126. 

does  not  include  non-lienable  items,  126. 

how  affected,   where  owner  fails  to   require  statement,  128. 

includes  interest,  126. 

installments,   when  due,   128. 

joint  contractors,  127. 

limited   by  contract,   126. 

may  relate  back  to  time  of  making  contract,  129. 

partial  failure  to  perform  contract,  126. 

reasonable  profit  included,  126. 

reasonable    value   will    control,    126. 

re-commencement  of  work,  130. 

secured  by  lien  statement,  125. 

subcontractor's  claim  cannot  exceed   balance   due   from  owner, 

127. 
subcontractor  entitled  to  amount  due  contractor,  128. 
time   fixed   by  notice,   126. 
what  is  commencement  of  work,  129,  130. 
where  owner  is  liable  to  third  person,  126. 
would   not   reach  damages,   128. 

AMOUNT  DUE, 

attached  bill  may  explain,  11.5. 

averment  in  claim,   115. 

averment  of  in  pleadings,  241. 

certainty  required,  115. 

copy  of  note,  115. 

entire  contract,  115. 

false,  115. 

general  balance  when  sufficient,  115. 

honest  mistake  does  not  defeat,  115. 

ordinary  bookkeeping  sufficient,  115. 

pleading,   215,   216. 

statement   must   show,   115. 

sufficient  if  contract  in  writing  is  given,  115. 

ANCESTOR, 

debts  of,  prior,  as  incurred  during  his   lifetime,  153. 


ANNULMENT   OF  LIEN, 


45 


See  Waives. 


706  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.l 
ANSWER, 

See    Pleading.    Cross    Petition. 

allegation  on  information  and  belief,  246. 

defendant  may  set  up  any  defense  he  has,  245. 

defendant  privileged  to  answer  when,  247. 

demurrer  lies,  insufficient,  245. 

denial   that  defendant   is  owner  of  land  insufficient,  246. 

effective,  what  is,  246. 

error  to  refuse,  247. 

filing  does  not  waive  jurisdiction,  249. 

information  and  belief,  246. 

may  set  up  cross-demand,  set-off  or  counter-claim,  247. 

must  controvert  a  material  averment  in  the  petition,  245. 

nil  debit  constitutes  general  denial,  246. 

not  allowed  in,  250. 

not  necessary  if  petition  does  not  state  a  cause  of  action,  245. 

not  proper,  if  defendant  not  made  party,  245. 

ordinary  rules  of  pleading  will  determine  sufficiency,  245. 

payment  and  averment  of,  when  good,  246. 

relations  of  law,  what  are,  246. 

required  when,  245. 

security  for  costs  will  not  prevent  finding  on  plea,  245. 

strictly  construed    against   pleader,    246. 

under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

what  it  should  set  out,  245. 

APPEAL, 

See  Ebbob. 
continues  lien,  131. 

APPLICATION   OF   PAY:MENTS, 

See  Payments. 
payor  and  payee  neither  applying,  the  court  will,  194. 
payor  not  designated,  payee  may  apply  to  any  debt,  194. 

APPRAISEMENT, 

property  separately,  280. 

APPURTENANCE, 

contract  may  determine,  15. 

digging  well,  15. 

fencing,  13. 

grading  and  paving  street,  15. 

heating  apparatus,  15. 

mill  dam,  15. 


INDEX,  707 

{References  are  to  sections.] 
APPURTENANCE— Contmwed. 

one  building  to  another,   15. 

planting  flowers,  15. 

power  house,  15. 

question  of  law  and  fact,  138. 

reservoir,  15. 

retaining  wall,  15. 

sewer,    15. 

sidewalk,  15. 

structure  under  Ohio  law,  44. 

subject  to  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

to  mill,  subject  to  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

what  included,  12,  15,  135. 

ARCHITECT, 

certificate  of  as  determining  completion,  96. 

certificate  of  when  required,   200. 

right  of  action  depending  upon  certificate  of,  262. 

right  to  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

services  give  lien,  16. 

ARTIFICIAL  PERSON, 

See  Corporations. 

ASSIGNIMENT  FOR  BENEFIT  OF  CREDITORS, 
as  affecting  priority,  150. 
assignee  may  bring  action,   211. 
does  not  affect  lien,  66. 
effect  of,  under  Ohio  statute,  44.  ' 
of  demands  due,  66,  67. 

ASSIGNMENT  OF  LIEN, 

See  Payment,  Priority. 
alleged  in  petition,  236. 

assignee  of  contract  when  entitled  to  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 
assignee  subrogated  to  rights  of  assignor,  167. 
bankrupt,  as  affected,  165. 
bona  fide,  must  be,  167. 
carries  judgment  rendered  on,  167. 
conditional  order  not  sufficient,  166. 
conflicting  decision,  165. 

death  of  parties  transfers  right  to  administrators,  166. 
does  not  affect  lien,  66. 
fraudulently  assigned  invalid,  166. 
given  as  collateral  insufficient,  167. 
if  invalid,  takes  installments  not  due,  167. 


708  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
ASSIGNMENT  OF  I^IK-^— Continued. 
immaterial  what  is  paid,  167. 
insolvency  as  affecting,  165. 
lien,  when  perfected,  165. 
must  be  absolute,  167. 
no  particular  form  required,  166. 
of  claim  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 
of  perfected  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 
of  principal  contract,  effect  on  subcontractor's  lien  under  Ohio 

statute,  89. 
partner  remaining  to  enforce  claim,  166. 
partners  selling  interest  in  the  firm  valid,  166. 
real  party  in  interest  controls,  165. 
subcontract,  how  affects,  167. 
unaccepted  order  insufficient,  167. 
unperfected,  165. 

valid  assignment  of  debt  carries  right  to  perfect  lien,  167. 
when  must  be  in  writing,  166,  167. 
when   sufficient  if   by   parol,   166. 

ATTACHMENT, 

not  necessary  to   gain  jurisdiction,  233. 
when  prior  to  lien,  154. 

ATTORNEY, 

may  sign  claim,  118. 

ATTORNEY  FEES. 

allowed  on  mortgage,  not  prior  to  lien,  162. 

amount  of,  301,  302. 

constitutional  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

included  in  indemnity  bond,  170. 

opposite  views  of  courts,  299-302. 

under  Indiana  statute,  300. 

when  courts  may  fix,  299-302. 

when  included  as  costs,  238,  239,  299-302. 

AVERMENT  OF  CONTRACT  IN  CLAIM, 
attached  copy.  111. 
extra  work,  how  shown,  110. 
may   refer    to    recorded   contract.   111. 
must  show  terms  of  contract.  111. 
need  not  be  given  verbatim,  110. 
not  necessary  to  state  contract  has  been  performed,  110. 


INDEX.  709 

[References  are  to  sections.^ 
AVERMENT  OF  CONTRACT  IN  CL,A.IM— Continued. 
proof  must  accord  with  averment,  111. 
statement  must  show,  110. 
sufficient  averments.  111. 
verbatim  if  statute  requires,   110. 
what  fullness  should  be  stated,  110. 

AVERMENT  OP  OWNERSHIP  IN  CLAIM, 
death  of  owner,  107. 
husband,  name  of,  sufficient,  107. 
if  wrong  name  is  given  by  owner,  he  is  estopped,  106. 
ignorance  of  owner's  name  not  excuse,  106. 
importance  of  correct  name,  106. 
joint  tenancy,  how  given,  107. 
legal  owner,  106. 
lessee,  107. 
married  women,  107. 
name  of  owner  when  lien  is  filed,  106. 
name  of  person  owning  land  at  time  contract  is  made,  107. 
necessity,  106. 

person  in  possession  under  executory  contract,  107. 
property  transferred  during  time  work  is  performed,  107. 
purchaser,  107. 

reputed  owner,  when  sufficient,  106. 
shown  by  public  records,  106. 
statement  itself  must  show,  106. 

AVOIDANCE  OF  LIEN, 

See  Waiveb. 

B 

BALANCE  DUE, 

finding  as  to,  269, 

BANKRUPTCY, 

lien   right   worked    out   through,   189,    190. 

of  owner,  does  not  defeat,  19. 

trustee  succeeds  to  right  of  bankrupt,  127,  165.  166. 

BOARD, 

of  hands,  whether  subject  to  lien,  44. 

BOATS, 

lien  for  building,  Ohio  statute,  44. 
nature  of  services,  entitling  to  lien,  44. 
structure  under  Ohio  law,  44. 


710  INDEX. 

IReferences  are  to  sections.] 
BONDS, 

See  Builders'  Bonds,  Indemnity  Bonds. 
action  is  equitable,  185. 
action  on,  185. 
amount  recoverable,   185. 
given  to  secure  performance,  169,  170. 
liability   on   the   released   lien,    184. 
strictly  construed  in  favor  of  surety,  184. 
to  be  given  by  contractors  on  public  buildings  under  Indiana 

statute,  45a. 
to  prevent  lien,  182. 
who  may  bring  action,  185. 

BOOK   ACCOUNTS, 

See  Evidence. 
not  necessary  that  there  should  be,  262. 

V 

BOOKKEEPER, 

not  entitled  to  lien,  16. 

BRIDGE, 

lien  for  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

lien  statement  of  principal  contractor  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

no  lien  on  public  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

not  subject  to  lien,  12. 

railroad,  subject  to  lien  under  Ohio  statute,   44. 

structure  under  Ohio  law,  44. 

subject  to  lien  under  Ohio  law,  44. 

BUILDERS'  BONDS, 

under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

BUILDING, 

amount  of  land   taken   with,  133. 

apportionment  of  work  to  several  parties,  136. 

appurtenant  to  main  building  liable,  134. 

block  of  on  one  tract,  136. 

boiler  house,  12. 

bridge,  12. 

coke  oven,  12. 

completion  not  necessary  to  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

description  in  claim  or  statement,  105. 

description  of  in  written  contract,  33. 

destruction  of  as  affecting  lien,  186. 

destruction  when  defeats  previous  incumbrance,  286. 

digging  well,  13. 


INDEX.  711 


IReferences  are  to  sections.} 
BUILDING — Continued. 
ditch,  12. 

equity  may  grant  right  to  remove,  282. 
excavations  included,  13. 
fences  and  gates,  12. 
fixture  becomes  a  part  of,  138. 
how   designated  in  claim,  101. 
how  much  land  taken  with,  132-134. 
liable  to  lien  separate  from  land,  138,  153. 
lime  kiln,  12. 

must  be  located  on  land,  12. 
of  different  owners,  85. 
oil  tank,  12. 
oil  well,  12. 
on  different  lots,  85. 

only  that  liable  on  which  labor  was  done,  134. 
question  for  jury,  267. 
railroad  bridge,  12. 
railroad  depot,  12. 
removal  of  affects  priority,  153. 
removal  of  as  affecting  lien,  186. 
removal  of  on  sale,  282. 
replevin  of,  282. 
sale  of,  separate  from  land,  274. 
several  on  contiguous  lots,   136,   137. 
several  on  different  lots,  134. 
swing,  12. 
vessel,   12. 

what  constitutes,  12,  267. 
what  constitutes  ownership  of,  26. 
when  completed,  95,  96. 
work  done  on  and  then  removed,  135. 
work  on  attaches  to  land  on  which  located,  132. 

BURDEN  OF  PROOF, 

See  Tbial,  Issues,  Evideistce. 

rests  upon  defendant,  257. 

rests  upon  plaintiff,  257. 

to  prove  amount  of  lien  taken,  257. 

to  prove  new  contract,  257. 

to   show  all  jurisdictional   facts,  257. 

to  show  contract  made  by  agent,  257. 

to  show  debt  due,  257. 

to  show  labor  done  at  certain  date,  257. 


712  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.1 
BURDEN  OF  PROOF— Continued. 

to  show  lien  statement  was  properly  made  and  filed,  257. 
to  show  statement  filed  within  required  time,  257. 
upon  subcontractor,  257. 

C 

CANCELLATION, 

different  jurisdictions,  124. 
equity  may  order,  124. 
may  be   stricken  out,  124. 
of  claim  or  statement,  124. 
statutory  provision,  124. 

CESTUI  QUE  TRUST, 

as  owner  under  Ohio  statute,  28,  44. 
defined,    28. 

CHANDELIERS, 

subject  to  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

CHATTEL  MORTGAGE, 

See  Mortgage. 

waiver  of  lien,  178. 

CHURCH, 

liable,  10. 

subject  to  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

CISTERN, 

lien  for,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

CLAIM  OR  STATEMENT, 

See  Filing  Claim  or  Statesiext.  Itemized  Account,  Statement. 

awkwardly  drawn  does  not  defeat,  100. 

building  on   contiguous    lots   must   show,   100. 

form  of,  not  usually  provided  for  by  statute,  100. 

for  subcontractors'  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  62. 

liberal   construction,   100. 

must  show  on  its  face  all  necessary  facts,  100. 

need  not  state  name  of  subcontractor,  100. 

object  of  to  give  notice,  100. 

statement  in  must  correspond  with  proof  on  trial,  100. 

substantial  compliance  required,  100. 
Amendment   of   Claim. 

amended  statement  becomes  same  as  a  new  one,  123. 

cannot  be  amended  after  expiration  of  time  limit,  123. 


INDEX.  713 

\_References  are  to  sections.l 
CLAIM  OR  STATEMENT— Con<i7iMed. 

cannot   be   amended   in  pleading,   123. 
controlled  largely  by  statute,  123. 
may  be  where  no  one  injuriously  affected,  123. 
more  cannot  be  recovered  than  claimed,  123. 
must  not  be  fraudulent  when  made,  123. 

Amount  due. 

attached  bill  may  explain,  115. 

certainty  required,  115. 

copy  of  note,  115. 

entire  contract,  115. 

false   statement  of,   115. 

general  balance  when  sufficient,  115. 

honest  mistake  does  not  defeat,  115. 

ordinary  bookkeeping,  sufficient,  115. 

statement  must  show,  115. 

sufficient   if  contract  in   writing  is   given,   115. 

Averment  of  Contract. 
attached  copy.  111. 
extra  work,  how  shown,  110. 
may  refer  to  recorded  contract.  111. 
must  show  terms  of  contract,  111. 
need  not  be  given  verbatim,  110. 

not  necessary  to  state  contract  has  been  performed,  110. 
proof  must  accord  with  averment.  111. 
statement  must  show,  110. 
sufficient  averments.  111. 
verbatim   if   statute   requires,   110. 
what  fullness  should  be   stated,  110. 

Averment   of   Oionership. 
death  of  owner,  107. 
husband,  name  of,  sufficient,  107. 
ignorance  of  owner's  name  not  excuse,  106. 
importance  of  correct  name,  106. 
joint   tenancy,   how   given,    107. 
legal  owner,  106. 
lessee,  107. 
married  women,  107. 
name  of  owner  when  lien  is  filed,  106. 

name  of  person  owning  land  at  time  contract  is  made,  107. 
necessity,  106. 
person  in  possession  under  executory  contract,  107. 


714  INDEX. 

^References  are  to  sections.'\ 
CLAIM  OR  STATEMENT— CowiiMMed. 

property  transferred  during  time  work  is  performed,  107. 

purchaser,  107. 

reputed  owner,  when  sufRcient,  106. 

shown  by  public  records,  sufficient,  106. 

statement  itself  must  show,  106. 

if  wrong  name  given  by  owner,  he  is  estopped,  106. 

Description  of  Building. 

certainty  same  as  land,  105. 

insufficient,  105. 

must  stand  as  made,  105. 

not  appurtenant,  101. 

owner's  name  aid  in  description,  105. 

palpable  mistake  does  not  defeat,  105. 

separate  from  land,  105. 

sufficiency,  101. 

Description  of  Property. 
acreage,  104. 

certainty  used  in  conveyance,  103. 
court  cannot  supply  omission,  103. 
extrinsic  evidence  cannot  supply  material  matters,  103, 
extrinsic  evidence  may  aid  identification,  103. 
includes  reasonable  space  about,  104. 
insufficient  averment,  103. 
liberal  construction,  103. 
necessary,  103. 

on  lot,  extends  through  to  street,  104. 
plat  vacated,  how   affects,  104. 
question  of  fact,  104. 

section  and  township  number  may  be  sufficient,  104. 
sufficient  if  notice  puts   interested  parties  on  inquiry,   104. 
valid  as  between  original  parties,  104. 
what  is  sufficient,   103. 
where  on  contiguous  lots,  103. 

Description  of  Services  or  Material. 
certainty  required,  108. 
contract  is  entire,  109. 
defect  cannot  be  cured  by  verdict,  108. 
determined  from  lien  itself,  108. 
extra  work,  109. 

form  should  be  followed  as  statute  provides,  109. 
insolvency  of  owner,  109. 


INDEX.  715 


[References  are  to  sections. 1 
CLAIM  OR  STATEMENT— CowfiMMed. 
insufficient  averment,  109. 
necessity,  108. 
need  not  be  specified,  109. 
statute  liberally  construed,  108. 
subcontractor's  statement  must  show,  108. 
used  in  building,  108. 
work  by  the  hour,  109. 

Name  of  Employer  or  Contractor. 
agent,  name  of,  112. 
if  cannot  be  determined,  fatal,  112. 
lessee,  name  of,  112. 
must  show,  112. 
sufficient  designation,  112. 
wife,  name  of,  112. 

'Notice  of  Intention  to  File. 
best  evidence  of  notice,  102. 
defective  in  verification,  102. 
sufficient  averments  of,  102. 
when  must  contain  averment,  102. 

Parties. 

agency  must  be  averred,   101. 
designation  of  parties,  101. 
name  and  place  of  business,  101. 
partnership  name,  how  averred,  101. 
wrong  designation  will  not  defeat,  101. 

Signing    by   Claimant. 

at  top  of  bill,  not  sufficient,  118. 

by  co-partnership,  118. 

by  corporation,  118. 

signing  by  agent,  sufficient,  118. 

signing  verification,  sufficient,  118. 

Time  of  Rendering  Services. 

determined   on   trial   from   statement,   113. 

entire  contracts,  114. 

erroneous,  not  misleading,  114. 

fraudulent,  invalidates,  114. 

if  not  within  time  limit,  fatal,  113,  114. 

mixing  of  non-lienable  items,  113. 

question  of  running  account  one  of  fact,  113. 


716  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'\ 
CLAIM  OR  ST ATEMKy^T— Continued. 
statement  must  show,  113. 
substantial  compliance  required,  113. 
sufficient  averment,  113,  114. 
variance  as  to  time,  114. 

Yerification. 

if  statute  requires,  invalid  if  not,  119. 

made  on  information  and  belief,  120. 

must  show  official  character  of  officer,  120. 

need  not  re-state  facts,  119. 

need  not  show  agency,  119. 

not  evidence  of  correctness  of  account,  119. 

not    required   unless   statute    requires,   119. 

oath   administered   in   other  states,   120. 

question  of  sufficiency  jurisdictional,  120. 

substantial  compliance  with  statute  required,  119. 

usually  considered  part  of  the  claim,   120. 

what  is  sworn  statement,  120. 

when  must  show  that  affiant  has  knowledge  of  facts,  120. 

who  may  administer  oath,  120. 

CLASSIFICATION, 

affecting  priority,  146. 

COAL, 

lien  for  mining,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

COLLATERAL  ATTACK, 

cannot  be  where  court  has  jurisdiction,  292. 
judgment  and  mechanic's  lien  cannot  be,  276. 

COLLATERAL  SECURITY, 
collateral  defined,  178. 

debt  transferred  as,  not  good  assignment,  167. 
exclusive  lien  on  property,  178. 

if  prevents  enforcement  of  lien,  lien  destroyed,  178. 
intention  must  be  that  it  is  waived  before  so  held,  178. 
surrendered  before  lien  right  is  lost  on  waiver,  179. 
taking  amounts  to  waiver,  178. 

COLLEGE, 

liable,  10. 

COLLUSION, 

to  defraud  subcontractor  under  Ohio  statute,  69. 


INDEX.  717 

IReferences  are  to  sections.} 
COMMENCEMENT  OF  WORK, 
affecting  priority,  157. 
fixing   time   of   lien,   129,    130. 
visible  and  open,  130. 
what  is,  129. 

COMMON  COUNTS, 

good  in  pleading,  250. 

COMMON   LAW, 

liens  in  derogation  of,  44. 
no  lien  under,  1. 

COMMON  LAW  ACTION, 

when  regarded  as  trial  to  jury,  265,  266. 

COMMUNITY  PROPERTY, 
covered  by  lien,  142. 
husband  may  bind,  30. 

COMPELLING  FORECLOSURE, 

statutory  provision  must  be  followed,  201. 

COMPLAINT, 

See  Petition. 
by   subcontractor   in   Indiana,   217. 
form  of,  by  material  man  under  Indiana  statute,  217. 
form  of,  against  principal  contractor  under  Indiana  statute,  217. 
under  Indiana  statute,  216. 

COMPLETION  OF  BUILDING, 

what  is,   200. 

COMPLETION  OP  WORK, 

evidence  sufficient  to  show,  261. 

CONCLUSIONS  OF  LAW, 

must  not  be  plead,  246. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  LAW, 

as  waiver  of  lien,  45a. 

does  not  waive  lien,  175. 

evidence  need  not  show  absolute  sale,  269. 

CONDITIONS  PRECEDENT, 

must  be  shown  to  sustain  action,  200. 
necessity  of  averment  in  petition,  215. 


718  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'] 

CONFESSION  AND  AVOIDANCE, 

plea  of,    253. 

CONFIRMATION  OF  SALE, 

attempt  to  redeem  does  not  defeat  right  to  object,  281. 

cures  defects  before,  281. 

notice  of  place  of,  281. 

notice  of  time  of,  281. 

parties  bound  to  know  the  practice  of  law,  281. 

setting  aside  of  sale  put  in  statu  quo,  281. 

subrogated  to  rights  of  defendant,  281. 

title  cannot  be  impeached  by  person  not  a  party,  281. 

to  maintain  title  must  show  statute  has  been  complied  with,  281. 

CONSIDERATION, 

must  be  valid,  32. 

CONSENT, 

use  of  material  without  consent,  23. 

CONSOLIDATION, 

actions  must  be  consolidated,  198. 

after,  each  claim  is  considered  as  if  standing  alone,  204. 
rights  of  all  should  be  determined  before  sale  ordered,  204. 
single  set  of  findings  may  be  had,  204. 

CONSTITUTIONALITY, 

See  Statute,  Law. 
attorney's  fees,  4. 

indebtedness  between  contractor  and  owner,  4. 
not  class  legislation,  4. 

not  taking  property  without  due  process  of  law,  4. 
part  constitutional,  4. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  LAW, 

lien  may  not  be  impaired  by  legislation,  45a. 

CONSTRUCTION  OF  LAW, 

always  liberal  relating  to  procedure,  8. 

as  to  perfecting  of  lien,  71. 

equal  between  general  contractors,  8. 

legislature  cannot  construe,  8. 

liberal,  8. 

meaning  of  strict  construction,  8. 

of  one  state  effect  upon  another,  8. 

on  equitable  principles,  8. 


INDEX.  719 


IReferences  are  to  secUons.'\ 
CONSTRUCTION  OF  I^W— Continued. 

strict  as  against  subcontractors,  58. 
strict  construction,  44,  45. 

CONSTRUCTIVE  NOTICE, 

See  Notice  to  Owner. 

CONTIGUOUS   LOTS, 

See  Buiujing. 
block  of  houses  building  over,  136. 
forming  one  contract,  135. 
lien  on,  under  Ohio  statute,  137. 

CONTINUING  CONTRACTS, 

presumption  as  to  waiver,  256. 
what  are,  98. 

CONTRACT, 

See  Owner,  Implied  Contracts. 

abandonment  of,  how  affects  subcontractor,  65. 

affecting  priority  of  mortgage,  162. 

agent  may,  29. 

allegations  of  in  petition,  236. 

amount  limited  by,  127. 

assignee  of  stands  in  shoes  of  assignor,  145. 

authentication,  when  required,  32. 

authority  to  make,  29. 

averment  of  contract  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

averment  of,  in  claim  or  statement,  110. 

averment  in  petition  made  with  owner,  240. 

burden  to  prove,  257. 

cannot  be  varied  by  parol,  262. 

cannot  hold  property  for  claim,  10. 

capacity  to  make,  29. 

certainty  in,  32. 

change  not  affecting  priority,  156. 

claimants  bound  by  its  terms,  32. 

commencement  under,  130. 

community  property,   31. 

consent  of  owner,  24,  25. 

consent    sufficient  to   imply,   36. 

consideration,  must  have  authority,  32. 

consideration  need  not  be  in  money,  34. 

consideration  other   than   money,   276. 


720  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
COlSiTRACT— Continued. 

continuous   as    affecting    priority,   157. 

contract  with  contractors,  48. 

control   of  property   might   raise   presumption   as   to   authority, 
24,  25. 

controls   rights  between  contractor  and  subcontractor,  128. 

copy  of,  in  statement  of  principal  contractor  under  Ohio  statute, 
81. 

corporation  not  in  existence  cannot  make,  30. 

description  of  building,  33. 

description  of  land,  33. 

determines  amount  secured  by  lien,  126. 

determining  amount,  129. 

different  tracts  of  land,  32. 

direct  contract  with  material  men,  47. 

effect  of  completion  by  administrator,  Ohio  statute,  38,  39. 

entirety  of,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

equity  cannot  supply,  25. 

estoppel  as  to,  35. 

evidence  as  to  abandonment,  259. 

evidence  as  to  completion,  259. 

evidence  between  owner  and  contractor  to  show  value  of  ma- 
terial, 262. 

existing  as  affecting  priority,  156. 

express  or  implied,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

fatal  if  not  substantially  averred,  110. 

filing  when  required,  79,  129. 

form  of  petition  when  parties  act  under,  215. 

fraudulently  assigned  does  not  transfer  right,  166. 

guardian  cannot  make,  29. 

idiots  cannot  make,  29. 

implied,  32,  35. 

implied  as  to  wife's  property,  37.  c 

improvements  by  lessee,  25. 

improvements  made  by  husband  on  wife's  property,  25. 

infants  cannot  make,  29. 

instructions  as  to  performance.  268. 

invalid  unless  contractor  in  existence  at  the  time  contract  was 
made,  24,  25. 

knowledge  of  wife  of  contract  made  by  husband  for  her  bene- 
fit, 38,  39. 

lapses  by  death  of  owner,  25. 

liable  independent  of,  126. 

lien  by  direct  contract  with  owner,  43. 

lien  dates  from  contract,  when,  129. 


INDEX.  721 

IReferences  are  to  sections.] 
CONTRACT— Continued. 

lien  under  direct  contract  with  owner,  Ohio  statute,  44. 

lunatics  cannot  make,  29. 

married  women  on  homestead,  32. 

married  women  on  separate  estates,  32. 

married  women  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

married  women  under  Ohio  statute,  38,  39. 

materials  must  be  furnished  in  the  state,  32. 

must  be  one  enforceable  by  law,  32. 

must  be  with  owner,  26. 

must  be  with  owner  capable  of  contracting,  44. 

must  show  in  order  to  sustain  action,  198. 

necessity  for,  24,  25. 

necessity  for,  to  support  subcontractor's  lien,  61. 

necessity  for  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

necessity  for,  with  owner  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

necessity  of  being  in  writing,  33. 

need  not  be  averred  verbatim,  110. 

new,  is  waiver,  175. 

no  lien  without,  24,  25. 

non-lienable  items,  32. 

notice  of,  56. 

not  implied  when,  24,  25. 

original,  admissible  in  evidence,  259. 

partner  can  make,  30. 

part  performance  as  affecting  amount,  126. 

payable  otherwise  than  in  money,  128. 

performance  of,  49. 

plans  and  specifications  attached  to,  32. 

presumption  of  scope  of  agent,  30. 

presumed  from  knowledge  of  parties  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

presumption  of  knowledge  of,  by  laborers  and  materialmen,  215. 

privity  of,  essential  to  personal  debt,  292. 

prospective  purchaser  when  can,  30. 

questions  of  law  and  fact,  267. 

ratification,  27,  29,  40. 

recording  of,  41. 

right  of  lien  becomes  fixed  at  time  of  making,  140. 

scope  of,  controls,  24,  25. 

separate  contracts,  130. 

stipulations,  57. 

affecting  subcontractor,  57,  65. 

in  principal   affecting  waiver,   173. 
substantial  performance  as  affecting  indemnity  bond,  169,  170. 
sufficiency  of,  32. 

46 


722  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'] 
CONTRACT— Con^inMed. 

tenant  in  common  can,  only  as  to  his  interest,  30. 
terms  and  times  of  payment  stated  in,  34. 
terms  of,  including  in  claim  or  statement,  111. 

set  out  in  petition,  143. 
time  of  filing,  controls  priority,  when,  146. 

making,  controls  priority,  when,  146. 
to  build  and  buy,  128. 
validity  of  lien,  rests  on,  29. 
valid  when  implied,  30. 
valid  wherever  made,  32. 
void  for  illegal  structure,  32. 
void  under  statute  of  frauds,  32. 
what  constitutes,  27. 
when  may  be  signed,  32. 
written,  33,  262. 

CONTRACT  OF  SALE, 

interest  liable  under,  138. 

CONTRACTOR, 

-i»i»  abandonment  of  his  contract,  49. 

•"—r  agreeing  not  to  take  lien  may  yet  purchase  another,  173. 

assignment  of  amount  due,  66,  67. 

bond  given  to  owner,  168,  169. 
^p^  can  prosecute  appeal  or  error,  297. 
*»— damage   by   reason  of  default  of,   210. 

duty  to  defend  actions  brought  by  subcontractors  under  Ohio 
statute,  206. 
•—  entitled  to  surplus  after  payment  of  subcontractor,  287. 

extension  as  to  time  of  filing  lien  statement,  99. 

filing  of  contract,  55. 

form  of  contract,  with  owner,  55. 

implied  contract  to  sublet.  48. 

indemnity  against  liens,  168. 

liable  to  personal  judgment  of  subcontractor,  292. 

material  man's  claim  prior  to,  146. 

may  be  material  man,  48. 

may  recover  price,  49. 

must  allege  capacity  in  which  sues,  236. 

name  in  claim  or  statement,  112. 

necessary  party,  229. 

New  York  stystem,   53,   54. 

orders  given  on  owner  for  payment,  67. 

Pennsylvania  system,  53,  54. 


INDEX.  723 

[References  are  to  sections.1 
CONTRACTOR— Continued. 

w  personal  action  against  owner,  247. 
recording  of  contract,  55. 
stipulations  in  contract  preventing  lien,  48. 
subcontractor's  claim  prior  to  claim  of,  144. 
subcontractor's  work  through  his  contract,  53. 
time  within  which  contract  to  be  performed,  49. 
who  are,  48. 

CONVEYANCE, 

lien  claim  must  be  perfected  to  be  prior,  149. 

made  by  sheriff,  283. 

made  during  progress  of  work  subject  to  lien,  150. 

made  prior  to  lien,  as  to  priority,  149. 

Massachussetts  rule,  150. 

mechanic  bound  by  terms  of,  150. 

purchaser  bound  by  terms  of,  150. 

purchaser  must  take  notice  of  condition  of  premises,  150. 

to  assignee,  not  prior,  149. 

trust  deed  has  no  priority,  149. 

voluntary  conveyance,  149. 

CONVEYANCE  AFFECTING  PRIORITY, 

assignee  of  creditors  same  rights  as  assignor,  149. 

condition  of  premises,  notice  to  purchaser,  150. 

constructive  notice  only  from  deed  entitled  to  record,  149. 

conveyance  after  right  of  lien  subject  to,  149. 

deed  filed,  notice  of  its  contents,  150. 

deed  made  subject  to  mechanic's  claim,  150. 

made  during  progress  of  work,  150. 

mechanic  bound  to  know  title,  149. 

mechanic  not  bound  to  search  records  after  right  attaches,  149. 

part  cannot  be  transferred  free  of  lien,  149. 

right  must  be  perfected,  149. 

trust  deed  not  prior,  149. 

voluntary,  not,  149. 

COOKING, 

does  not  give  lien,  17. 

COKE  OVEN, 

not  subject,  12. 

COOKING  APPARATUS, 

when  subject  to  lien,  14. 


724  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
COPY, 

of   contract   in   statement   of   principal   contractor   under   Ohio 

statute,  81. 
of  statement  of  subcontractor  to  principal  contractor  under  Ohio 

statute,  92. 

CORPORATION, 

action  against,  225. 

entitled  to  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 
not  in  existence  cannot  make  contract,  30. 
may  acquire  lien  under  Ohio  law,  44. 
officer  of  may  make  verification,  119. 
verification  of  affidavit  by,  81. 

COSTS, 

attached  to  verdict,  269. 

attorney's   fees    under    Indiana   statute,   300. 
how  paid,  299,  301,  302. 

owner  may  charge  contractor  with  costs  of  defending  subcon- 
tractor's suits  in  Ohio,  206. 
security  for  motion,  does  not  prevent  judgment,  245. 
taxed  according  to  law  in  force  at  the  time  of  taxing,  299. 
when  party  under  disability,  302. 

CO-TENANT, 

cannot  bind  other  co-tenant,  140. 

COUNTER-CLAIM, 

See  Set  Off. 

may  be  plead,  246,  247. 
when  allowed,  209. 

COUNTIES, 

not  liable  in  Indiana  for  failure  to  take  bond,  45a. 

COUNTY  BRIDGE, 

See  Bridges 
not  liable,  10. 

COUNTY  JAIL, 

no  lien  for  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

COURT, 

See  Tbiai,  Questions  of  Law  and  Fact. 
Question  of  fact,  267-269. 


INDEX.  725 

IReferences  are  to  sections.} 
COURT  HOUSE, 

not  liable,  10. 

no  lien  on  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

CREDIT, 

when  given  to  certain  amount,  cannot  be  changed,  194. 

CREDIT  OF  BUILDING, 

presumption  as  to   furnishing  materials,  256. 

CROSS-BILL, 

what  is,  247. 

CROSS-PETITION, 

cross-petitioner  need  not  allege  matters  proper  for  a  defense, 

247. 
law  encourages  settlement  of  all  claims  between  parties,  247. 
may  set  up  set-off  or  counterclaim,  247. 
must  state  a  good  cause  of  action,  no  particular  form  required, 

247. 
process  must  be  issued  if  new  party  is  affected,  247. 
same  rules  control  as  to  facts  of  the  petition,  247. 
when  error  to  refuse  defendant  this  privilege,  247. 

CUMULATIVE, 

action  on  lien  is,  198. 
under  Ohio  statute,  89. 

CURTESY, 

as  ownership  in  making  contract,  44. 
liable  when,  11,  140. 
prior  to  lien,  153. 

D 

DAMAGES, 

action  for  separate  cause  of  action,  293. 

consequential,  25. 

not  a  lien,  25. 

not  covered  by  subcontractor's  rights,  126,  128. 

unliquidated,  not  subject  to  lien,  66. 

DATE, 

of  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 

when  subcontractor's  lien  becomes  operative,  89. 

when  lien  becomes  operative,  81,  82. 


726  INDEX. 

^References  are  to  sections.^ 
DEATH, 

of  owner  does  not  destroy  lien,  187. 

of  owner,  effect  on  subcontractor  under  Ohio  statute,  52. 

of  parties  under  Ohio  statute,  38,  39. 

of  principal  contractor,  administrator  may  file  statement,  81. 

remedy  where  work  suspended  by  death  of  owner,  under  Ohio 

statute,  50,  51. 
transfers  right  to  administrator,  165,  166. 

DEBT, 

action  cannot  be  brought  until  due,  211. 

action  on  does  not  bar  suit  on  lien,  196. 

bringing  action  on  lien,  no  waiver,  284. 

burden  on  plaintiff  to  show,  257. 

does  not  destroy  lien,  191,  192. 

evidence  of,  260. 

foreclosure  of  lien  does  not  release,  284. 

foundation  of  lien,  241. 

implied,  insuflficient,  293. 

loss  of  lien,  does  not  destroy,  131. 

of  owner  as  affecting  priority,  153. 

renewed  in  mortgage  does  not  lose  priority,  155. 

satisfaction  of,  bars  action,  196. 

valid  assignment  carries  right  of  lien,  165-168. 

DECLARATION, 

See  Petition. 

DECREE, 

See  Judgment. 

DEED, 

See  Conveyance,  Puechasee. 
in  escrow  conveys  lienable  interest,  140. 

DEFAULT, 

judgment  by,  271,  272. 

judgment  by,  must  be  as  prayed  for,  293. 

DEFECTIVE  TITLE, 

proceedings  under  Ohio  statute,  285. 

DEFENSE, 

See  Pleadings. 
action  pending  on  debt,  205. 

allegation  that  filing  destroys  credit  of  contractor,  205. 
assignment  of  monej'  due,  209. 
claimant  must  show  the  conditions  of  statute  performed,  205. 


INDEX.  727 

[References  are  to  sections.} 
DEFENSE— Continued. 

contract  void  as  against  public  policy,  207. 

counterclaim,  209. 

damages  by  reason  of  default  of  contractor,  209. 

defendant  may  set  up  whatever  he  has,  205,  207,  246. 

estoppel,  207. 

grantee  has  no  defense  if  reservation  sufficient  to  meet  lien,  205. 

immaterial  omission,  205. 

insufficient  tender,  205. 

lienable  and  non-lienable  items  when,  205. 

matters  of,  not  set  up  in  petition,  239,  243. 

may  set  up  as  many  as  he  has,  207. 

more  notices  filed  than  necessary,  not  205. 

no  title  may  be,  207. 

ordinary  rules  of  pleading  applied,  205. 

party  must  have  interest  before,  211. 

party  to  more  than  one,  205. 

receivership,  207. 

set-off,  209. 

that  contractor  does  not  pay  because  owner  does  not  pay,  207. 

that  the  elements  prevented  compliance,  207. 

under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

what  are  matters  of,  243. 

DEFINITION, 

affidavit,  81. 

ces-tui  que  trust,  28. 

of  lien,  2. 

of  owner,  11. 

strict  construction,  8. 

DELIVERY, 

of  materials  essential  to  vest  title,  44. 

DEMAND, 

not  necessary  under  Indiana  statute,  216. 

DEMURRER, 

applies  statement  in  petition  or  exhibit,  249. 

cannot  be  filed  to  petition  after  answer,  249. 

confusion  in  description  of  property,  249. 

contract  not  set  out,  249. 

demand  for  personal  judgment  sufficient  to  convey  it,  236. 

filing  does  not  waive  jurisdiction,  249. 

for  failure  to  verify,  244. 


728  INDEX. 

IReferences  are  to  sections.'] 
DEMURRER— Continued. 
for  misjoinder,  244. 

if  proof  required  to  show  facts  alleged,  will  not  lie,  249. 
irreconcilable  statements,  249. 
materials  not  furnished  within  time  limit,  249. 
necessary  persons  not  made  party,  249. 
same  as  general  cause  of  action,  249. 
special,  249. 
to  cross-petition,  247. 
when  failure  to  state  time  will  be  good  cause  for,  247. 

DEPOSIT, 

cash,  may  be  waiver,  179. 

material  man  may  waive  right  to,  183. 

of  money  to  prevent  lien,  183. 

statutes  permitting  strictly  followed,  183. 

DEPOT, 

not  liable,  10. 

DESCRIPTION, 

aided  in  cases  of  indefinite,  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 

claim  or  statement  must  contain,  108. 

defective  not  cured  by  verdict,  108. 

extra,  109. 

for  several  buildings,  108. 

for  what  furnished,  108. 

kind  and  quantity  mentioned,  108. 

mingling  of  lienable  and  non-lienable  items,  109. 

of  building  sufficient,  33. 

of  land  sufficient,  33. 

of  land  in  statement  of  principal  contractor  under  Ohio  statute, 

81. 
of  note  in  statement  of  principal  contractor  under  Ohio  statute, 

81. 
of  premises  in  complaint  under  Indiana  statute,  216. 
of  services  or  material,  108. 

substantial  compliance  with  statute  required,  109. 
sufficient  averment  in  claim,  108. 
where  statute  prescribes  forms  should  be  followed,  109. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  BUILDING, 

certainty  same  as  land,  105. 

insufficient,  105. 

land  will  include  building,  105. 


INDEX.  729 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
DESCRIPTION  OP  BVll.Di:>iG— Continued. 
lien  statement  must  contain,  105. 
must  stand  as  made,  105. 
owners  name  aid  in,  105. 
palpable  mistake  does  not  defeat,  105. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  IMPROVEMENTS, 

lien  on  petition  must  describe,  238. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  PROPERTY, 

acreage  when  should  be  mentioned,  104,  105. 

certainty  required,  33,  103. 

claim  must  have,  103. 

contiguous  lots,  103. 

court  cannot  supply  omissions,  103. 

curtilage  need  not  be  included  in  statement,  104. 

extrinsic  evidence  cannot  supply  material  matters,  103. 

extrinsic  evidence  may  aid,  103,  237. 

includes  reasonable  space,  104. 

liberal  construction,  103. 

lot  and  block  numbers  may  be  sufficient,  104. 

matters  in  statement  control,  103. 

more  than  required,  104,  237. 

negligent,  250. 

plat  of  lot  in  city,  104,  237. 

question  of  fact  for  jury,  104. 

section  and  township,  not  sufficient,  104. 

sufficient  in  decree,  272. 

sufficient  in  notice,  puts  party  on  inquiry,  77,  108. 

sufficient  in  petition,  237. 

valid  as  between  original  parties,  104. 

what  sufficient,  103. 

whether  the  same  in  statement  and  petition,  question  of  fact,  267. 

wrongful,  104,  249. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  SERVICES  OR  MATERIAL, 

certainty  required  in,  108. 

claim  or  statement  must  contain,  108. 

contract  is  entire,  109. 

defect  cannot  be  cured  by  verdict,  108. 

determined  from  lien  itself,  108. 

extra  work,  109. 

form  should  be  followed  as  statute  provides,  109. 

insufficient  averment,  109. 

need  not  be  specified,  109. 


730  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
DESCRIPTION  OF  SERVICES  OR  MATERIALS— Continued. 
statute  liberally  construed,  108. 
subcontractor's  statement  must  show,  108. 
used  in  building,  108. 
where  owner  insolvent  should  show,  109. 
work  by  the  hour,  109. 

DESTRUCTION  OF  BUILDING, 

does  not  affect  lien  on  land,  186. 

effect  on  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  4.5a. 

when  building  separately  liable  lien  is  not  lost,  186. 

DIFFERENT  BUILDINGS, 

statement  for,  85. 

DIRT  HAULERS, 

entitled  to  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

DISCRETION   OF  COUURT, 

not  subject  to  review  when,  295. 

DISTRIBUTION   OF   PROCEEDS, 

See  Pkiority  of  Lien. 

according  to  priority,  274. 
how  made,  287. 

DITCH, 

irrigation,  how  described  in  statement,  115. 
not  subject,  12. 

DOWER, 

as  ownership  in  making  contract,  44. 

inchoate  right  not  subject,  11. 

interest  not  subject,  11. 

prior  to  lien,  153. 

priority  as  between  lien  and  dower  under  Indiana  statute.  148a. 

DRAINS, 

lien  for  digging,  Ohio  statute,  44. 
lien  for,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 
subject  to  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

DURATION  OF  LIEN, 

appeal,  effect  of,   131. 

destruction  of  building,  effect  of,  131. 

loss  of  lien  does  not  destroy  debt,  131. 


INDEX.  731 

[References  are  to  sections.^ 
DURATION  OP  'LIE^— Continued. 

method  provided  by  statute  to  continue  must  be  followed,  131. 

nunc  pro  tunc  entry  does  not  revive,  131. 

owner  cannot  revive,  131. 

remains  until  removed  as  provided  by  statute,  131. 

remains  until  property  sold  and  proceeds  released,  131, 

under  Indiana  statute,  83. 

of  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

unreasonable  neglect  may  destroy,  131. 

DWELLING  HOUSE, 

Includes  building,  12. 

B 
EMPLOYER, 

name  in  claim  or  statement,  112. 

ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIEN, 

See  Foreclosure  of  Lien. 
continuous,  131. 

owner  may  require  lien  holder  to  commence  suit  in  Ohio  and 
Indiana,  202,  203. 

ENGINEER, 

time  of  filing  lien  in  Ohio  as  dependent  on  acceptance  by,  81. 

ENTIRE  CONTRACT, 

See  Contract. 
one  date  sufficient,  114. 

EQUALITY  OF  LIENS, 

under  Ohio  statute,  147. 

EQUITABLE   INTEREST   LIABLE, 

See  Property  Covered  by  Lien. 
estate  subject   to,   11 

EQUITABLE  TITLE, 

See  I*urchaser. 
at  judicial  sale,  140. 
legal  title,  140. 
while  debt  in  escrow  has  lienable  interest,  140. 

EQUITY, 

cannot  aid  where  claim  not  filed  in  time,  80. 
cannot  extend  time  of  action,  213. 
cannot  supply  contract,  25. 
controls  enforcement,  197. 


732  INDEX. 

IRefcrences  are  to  sections.] 
EQUITY— Continued. 

controls  proceedings,  201. 

lien  enforced  in  court  of,  197. 

may  order  cancellation  of  claim,  124. 

no  lien  under,  1. 

relieves  where  common  law  cannot,  197. 

retains  jurisdiction  once  acquired,  197. 

trial  of  right  governed  by,  265.  * 

when  court  will  restrain  proceedings,  201. 

will  not  charge  estate  of  wife,  32. 

will  not  supply  notice,  77. 

ERECTION, 

what  included  in,  12. 

ERROR, 

See  Amendments. 
action  dismissed  when,  298. 
affidavit  of  contract  made  in  court  below,  296. 
distinction  between,  and  appeal,  295. 

governed  by  practice  of  court  in  which  action  is  had,  295. 
harmless,  298. 

higher  court  does  not  usually  increase,  295. 
jurisdiction  of  subject  matter  made  in  time,  296. 
matter  of  jurisdiction  made  in  court  below,  295. 
must  be  interested  party,  297. 
must  follow  method  provided  by  statute,  297. 
non-joinder  of  parties  made  in  court  below,  296. 
not  granted  for  insufficient  evidence,  298. 
notice  of,  296. 

ownership  of  property  made  in  court  below,  296. 
question  of  notice  of  lien  made  in  court  below,  296. 
question  of  use  of  material  in  building,  made  in  court  below, 

296. 
refusal  of  counterclaim,  247. 
technical  will  not  defeat  mortgage,  159. 
who  may  allege  error,  297. 
will  not  be  presumed,  298. 

ERRORS, 

actual  knowledge  may  excuse,  121. 

amended  if  no  one  misled,  121. 

apportionment  of  payment  in  lienable  items,  122. 

claimant  must  exercise  proper  care,  121. 

claim  excessive,  121,  122. 

claim  or  statement  amended  when,  121. 


INDEX.  733 

IReferences  are  to  sections.] 
ERRORS— Continued. 

courts  deal  leniently  with,  121. 

enforced  to  extent  of  lienable  property,  122. 

fraudulent  mis-statement,  121. 

fraudulent  presumption,  121. 

honest  mis-statement,  121. 

in  description  of  land,  121. 

in  description  of  materials,  122. 

intermingling  of  lienable  and  non-lienable  items,  122. 

materials  not  used  on  building,  122. 

name  of  persons  not  fatal,  122. 

omission  of  statutory  requirement,  121. 

substantial  compliance  with  statute  sufficient,  121. 

variance  between  pleading  and  evidence,  122. 

waiver  of  defects,  122. 

ESTATE  SUBJECT  TO  LIEN, 

See  Propekty  Coveeed  by  Lien. 
under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

ESTOPPEL, 

acceptance  of  other  security,  180. 

agreement  not  to  have  lien,  180. 

agreement  not  to  look  to  the  owner,  180. 

as  a  defense,  208. 

as  affecting  lien,  ISO. 

as  affecting  lieu  holders,  161. 

as  affecting  priority  of  mortgage,  161. 

commencement  of  foreclosure  proceedings,  180. 

on  indemnity  bond,  168. 

plaintiff  may  be  held,  262. 

receipt  in  full,  180. 

receipt  of  part  consideration,  180. 

sufficient  to  bind  owner,  35. 

waiver  by,  180. 

when  sufficient  to  create  contract,  35. 

EVIDENCE, 

See  Burden  of  Proof,  Issue,  Questions  of  Law  and  Fact,  Variance. 

Admissibility, 

book   accounts,    259. 

charges  for  more  than  went  into  building,  259. 

condition  of  accounts  between  owner  and  contractor,  259. 

employment  of  one  person  shown  for  another,  259. 


734  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
EVIDENCE — Continued. 

for  defendant's  defense,  258. 

for  plaintiff's  cause,  258. 

irrevelant  matter,  258. 

judgment,  259. 

knowledge  of  owner  of  erection  of  building,  259. 

law  of  forum  controls,  258. 

lease,  259. 

lien  statement,  260. 

materials  sold  on  joint  account,  260. 

memorandum  of  statement,  260. 

original  contract,  259. 

parol  evidence,  259. 

pleadings,  260. 

quality  of  workmanship,  259. 

reasonable  value  of  materials,  259. 

statement  by  subcontractor  to  contractor,  259. 

subsequent   purchasers'    relation   to    lien,    258. 

Burden  of  Proof, 

rests  upon  defendant,  257. 

rests  upon  plaintiff,  257. 

subcontractor  must  prove  facts  upon  which  his  right  rests,  257. 

to  prove  amount  of  lien  taken,  257. 

to  prove  new  contract,  257. 

to  show  all  judicial  facts,  257. 

to  show  contract  made  by  agent,  257. 

to  show  debt  due,  257. 

to  show  labor  done  at  certain  date,  257. 

to  show  lien  statement  was  properly  made  and  filed,  257. 

to  show  statement  filed  within  required  time,  257. 

insufficient,  action  dismissed,  267. 

must  support  the  issue,  252-255. 

Presumptions, 

as  to  claim  being  under  mechanic's  lien  act,  256. 

as  to  continuous  contract,  256. 

as  to  furnishing  of  materials,  256. 

as  to  making  contract,  256. 

of  time  lien  attaches,  256. 

putting  in  claim  does  not  show  it  is  defective,  240. 

questions  of  law  and  fact,  267. 

rules  the  same  as  ordinary  action,  256. 

under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

when  promissory  note  taken,  256. 


INDEX.  735 

IReferences  are  to  sections.^ 
EVIDENCE— Con^iriMed. 
Sufficiency  and  Weight, 

architect's  certificate,  262. 

completion  of  work,  262. 

conflicting  finding   allowed   to   stand,   261. 

contract  between  owner  and  contractor,  262. 

notice  given  as  condition  precedent  262. 

occupation  of  houses  as  residents,  261. 

preponderance  of,  261. 

proof  of  contract,  252. 

property  assessed  for  taxation,  261. 

to  support  claim,  261. 

undenied  averments  of  petition,  261. 

variance  will  not  affect  finding,  261. 

variance,  254. 

verdict  should  not  narrate,  269. 

weight  of,  usually  not  regarded  on  error,  295. 

EXCAVATIONS, 

See  Property  Covered  by  Lien. 
commencement  of  building,  130. 
as  determining  commencement  of  lien,  81. 

EXECUTIONS, 

See  Jxjdgment.  Order  of  Sale. 

defendant  selling  part  to  be  sold,  277. 

necessary  findings  to  support,  277. 

setting  aside,  224,  277. 

stay  granted,  277. 

what  subject  to,  277. 

when  prior  to  lien,  154. 

writ  of,  277. 

EXECUTOR, 

See  Trustee. 
as  owner,  44. 
as  party  to  suit,  227. 
may  file  statement  on  death  of  principal  contractor,  Ohio  statute 

81. 
not  owner,  26. 
rights  under  Ohio  statute,  38,  39. 

EXECUTORY   CONTRACT, 

See  Purchaser. 
when  purchaser,  owner,  26,  27. 


736  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
EXEMPTIONS, 

under  Indiana  statute,  84. 

EXHIBIT, 

attached  to  petition,  241. 

discrepancy  between  and  petitions,  241. 

must  show  it  is  part  of  petition,  242. 

EXTENT, 

of  land  included,  under  Indiana  statute,  4oa. 

EXTINGUISHMENT  OF  LIEN, 

See  Waivee. 

EXTRAS, 

as  extending  time  for  filing,  98. 
averment  of,  in  petition,  239. 
done  as  verbal  orders,  205. 
how  shown,  110. 
included  in  contract,  127. 
included  in  statement,  109. 
payment  for,  128. 

EXTRATERRITORIAL  EFFECT, 

See   Law. 
lien  laws,  have  none,  IS. 

F 

FEES, 

See  Costs.  Attorxey  Fees. 

FENCES, 

not  included  in  lien,  12,  44. 

FIGURES, 

Understood  meaning  in  statement,  113. 

FILING  CLAIM  OR  STATEMENT, 

See  Claim  oe  Statemei^t. 
affecting  priority,  146. 
by  agent,  90. 
effect  of  withdrawal,  90. 
equity  cannot  give  relief,  80. 
joint  notices,  8.5. 
matters  jurisdictional,  80. 
may  be  waived,  90. 
necessity  for,  80. 
not  effective  beyond  county  where  filed,  44. 


INDEX.  7Z7 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
FILING  CLAIM  OR  ST AT'EMENT— Continued. 
notice  of  how  given,  90. 

of  subcontractor  with  owner  under  Ohio  statute,  62. 
on  separate  property,  90. 
place  for  filing,  85. 

filed  under  custody  of  officer,  86. 

law  in  force  at  time  of  filing  controls,  86. 

must  be  in  county  where  building  located,  86. 

must  be  where  statute  designates,  86. 
premature  filing,  90,  95. 
recorded  when,  86. 
release  of  part,  85. 
separate  claims  against  different  buildings,  80. 

different  owners,  85. 

double  houses,  85. 

on  different  lots,  85. 

on  same  lot  of  land,  85. 
time  of,  fixes  lien,  131. 

Tijne  Within  Which  to  be  Filed. 
abandonment  affecting,  97. 
amendment  after  time  has  run,  99. 
articles  purchased  on  credit,  94. 
begins  to  run  from  last  date,  94,  98. 
certificate  of  architect  fixing  time  of  completion,  96. 
cessation  of  work,  97. 
completion  of  building,  95,  96, 
contractor  cannot  extend  time,  97. 
death  of  owner,  affecting,  94. 
debt  due,  94. 

delay  unreasonable,  95,  96. 
delivery  of  articles,  94,  97. 

distinction  between  contractors  and  subcontractors,  99. 
effect  of  successive  deliveries,  98. 
effect  to  be  given  statements  in  claim,  96. 
extension  of  time,  96,  97,  99. 
failure  of  officer  to  endorse,  94. 
furnishing  under  running  contract,  98. 
incumbrances  do  not  affect,  94. 
must  be  within  statute,  94. 
♦  new  contract  will  not  extend,  94. 
original  contract  determines  time,  95. 
owner's  acts  determining,  95. 
owner's  failure  to  accept,  when  determines,  97. 
parties  cannot  agree  to  injure  third  person,  99. 

47 


738  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections^] 
FILING  CLAIM  OR  STATEMENT— Continwed. 
premature  filing,  90,  95. 
receivership  does  not  affect,  94. 
running  contract,  98. 
secret  arrangement  cannot  extend,  94. 
separate  claims  for  separate  articles,  98. 
statute  strictly  construed,  94. 
transfer  does  not  affect,  94. 
under   Indiana  statute,  83. 

when  actual,  will  not  dispense  with  notice  required,  90. 
who  may  file,  86. 
with  recorder  in  Ohio,  81. 

FILING  CONTRACT, 

diligence  required,  79. 

FINDING, 

See  Decree,  Verdict,  Judgment,  Order  of  Sale. 

FIXTURE, 

bolting  cloth,  14. 

brewery  appliances,  14. 

building  erected  by  tenant,  138. 

burr  mill-stones,  13,  14. 

chairs  of  theatre,  14. 

cooking  range,  14. 

copper  kettle  in  brew  house,  138. 

electric  light  wires  and  insulators,  14. 

engine  and  boilers,  13,  14. 

furnaces  not  fastened  down,  14. 

gas  fixtures,  14. 

guards  used  in  drier,  138. 

heating  and  cooking  apparatus,  14. 

ice  machine,  13. 

in  different  buildings,  14. 

lien  statement  of  principal  contractor  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

machinery,  14. 

machinery  capable  of  being  severed,  138. 

matte  pots,  13. 

mining  machinery,  138. 

mirrors  set  in  wall,  14. 

partition  in  hotel,  14. 

printing  machine,  14. 

pump  placed  in  basement  of  building,  138. 

stage  scenery,  14. 

store,  14. 


INDEX,  739 

[References  are  to  sections.} 
YlXmiLE— Continued. 

store  counters,  138. 

store  furniture,  13,  14. 

structure  under  Ohio  law,  44. 

subcontractor's  lien  on,  under  Ohio  statute,  88. 

subject  to  common  law  lien,  14. 

isubject  to  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

subject  to  prior  lien,  158. 

table,  13. 

taking  down,  not  subject  to  lien,  13. 

trade  fixtures,  13,  14. 

where   liable,   138. 

FLOATING  DECK, 

when  subject  to,  12. 

FLOWERS, 

planting  of,  not  subject,  15. 

FORECLOSURE, 

action  cannot  be  dismissed  when  party  has  rights,  204. 

lost  by  negligence,  220. 

must  be  brought  in  court  having  jurisdiction,  212. 

not  pending  until  service  of  summons,  232. 

on  debt  does  not  bar,  196. 

one  in  rem,  197. 

on  lien  cumulative,  198. 

regarded  as  equitable,  197. 
cannot  be  brought  in  state  other  than  location  of  structure,  212. 
cannot  be  brought  until  debt  has  matured,  214. 
certificate  of  architect  when  necessary,  214. 
claimant  cannot  enforce  lien  by  retaining  possession  of  property, 

198. 
claimant  must  show  performance  of  condition  precedent,  200. 
commenced  by  issuing  summons,   220. 
commencement  affecting  waiver,  180. 
community  property,  action  on,  224. 
completion  of  work  as  time  for  bringing,  219. 
compulsion   in  bringing  action,   201,   202. 
consolidation  of  actions,  204. 
contract  must  be  complied  with,  214. 
counter-claim  allowed,  209. 

course  pursued  where  improvements  removed,  237. 
court  of  equity  usually  has  jurisdiction,  212. 
cross-petitioner  rests  upon  his  own  rights,  220. 


740  INDEX. 

/ 

[References  are  to  sections.] 

FORECLOSURE— Confinwed. 

damages  by  default  of  contractor,  210. 
debt  matures   when  credit  expires,   218. 
decree  nullity  as  to  persons  not  made  parties,  225. 
defective  service  does  not  save  action,  220. 
defendant  must  be  served  with  summons  or  not  bound,  232. 
defenses  may  be  shown  under  ordinary  rules,  205. 
defense  that  defendant  held  no  title  not  good,  207,  208. 
delivery  as  fixing  time  for  bringing,  219. 
demand  not  usually  necessary  before  suit,  200. 
each  claim  tried  on  its  merits  where  action  is  consolidated,  20  i. 
filing  of  petition  may  preserve,  220. 
general  principles  as  controlling  parties,  222. 
governed  by  rules  of  chancery  court,  197. 
immaterial   omission   would  not  affect,   205. 
inchoate  dower  as  affecting,  224. 
incumbrances  after  commencement  of  suit,  228. 
indorsement  on  summons,  234. 
installments  due,  action  may  be  brought,  214. 
intermingling  of   lienable   and   non-lienable    items,   may   be   de- 
fense when,  205. 
jurisdiction  determined  by  statute,  212. 
law  of  forum  largely  controls,  196. 

lienholder  bringing  action  will  not  save  rights  of  others,  218. 
limitation  of  action,  213. 
limitation  to  bring,  218. 

maturity  of   claim   affecting   right   to   bring,    218. 
mechanics  holding  liens  should  all  be  brought  in,  231. 
not  entitled  to  jury  trial,  196. 
notice  of  lis  pendens  affecting,  234. 
on  several  properties  may  be  enforced  on  one,  196. 
parties — 

addition  of,  230. 

administrator,  227. 

assignee  for  benefit  of  creditors,  211. 

assignor  and  assignee  when  joined,  221. 

assignor  of  claim,  221. 

cannot  be  joined   unless  jointly  interested,  204. 

contractor  necessary  party  defendant,  229. 

defendant,  222,  227. 

executor,  227. 

heirs,  227. 

husband  and  wife  joined  as  defendants,  224. 

incumbrancers,  228. 

in  interest  should  bring,  221. 


INDEX.  741 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
FOREChOSVRE— Continued. 

intervention,   230,   231. 

mortgagees,  228. 

necessary,  221-223. 

owner  of  legal  title,  proper,  225,  226. 

partner,  225,   226. 

proper,  204,  224. 

receiver,  211. 

subcontractor,  229. 

subcontractor  and  contractor  cannot  join,  221. 

substitution  of  party,  230. 

sureties  on  bond,  211,  224. 

trustees  not  necessary,  228. 

undisclosed  principal  may  bring,  221. 

vendor  and  purchaser  may  be  united,  232. 

"Who  may  bring,  211. 
pending  suit  affecting,  228. 

person  not  party  until  served  with  summons,  232. 
plaintiff  may  be  estopped,  207,  208. 
pre-existing  liens,  204. 
proceedings   affect  only  part  of,   155. 
process,  what  is,  231. 

property  need  not  be  seized  to  acquire  jurisdiction,  197. 
property  once  in  court,  must  be  worked  through  the  court,  212. 
regarded   sometimes   as   civil   action,   197. 
restraining  of  action,  201,  202. 
right  of  action  may  be  waived,  207. 
satisfaction  of  debt  bars,  196. 
scire    facias    as    method    of    foreclosure,    234. 
service  by  attachment,  234. 
service  of  summons,  233. 
set-off  allowed,  209. 
sometimes   as   special  proceeding,  197. 
subcontractor  must  bring  action  within  time  allowed  principal, 

218,  219. 
subcontractor  must  show  debt  due  principal  contractor,  200. 
subcontractors   are  bound  by  terms  and  conditions  of  original 

contract,  210. 
subcontractor's  right  rests  on  account  between  him  and  contrac- 
tor, 229. 
statute  controls  limitation,  213. 

technicalities  will  not  defeat  service  of  summons,  232. 
transfers  right  to  fund,  175. 
under  Ohio  statute,  215. 


742  INDEX. 

^References  are  to  sections.] 
FORECLOSURE— CowiiMMefZ. 
venue   of   action,   212. 

waiver  of  time  limit  by  going  into  trial,  214. 
when  commenced  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 

FORECLOSURE   OF   MORTGAGE, 
effect  on  priority,  148a. 

FORFEITURE, 

of  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  193. 

FORM, 

claim  not  void,  if  inartistically  drawn,  100. 
statute  usually  does  not  provide,  100. 

FORMS, 

affidavit  for  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 
affidavit  to  notice  of  subcontractor,  87. 
complaint   against   principal  contractor   under   Indiana    statute, 

217. 
complaint    by    material    man,    217. 
itemized  statement  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 
notice  of  mechanics'  lien,  84. 
notice  to  lienholder  to  commence  suit,  202. 
notice  to  owner  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 
petition    against  owner   by    subcontractor   for   money   had   and 

received,  215. 
petition  by  principal  contractor  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 
petition  by  subcontractor,  215. 

petition  or  complaint  by  subcontractor  in  Indiana,  217. 
petition  when  parties  are  under  contract,  215. 
requisites  of  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 
subcontractors'  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  88. 

FORUM, 

law  of,  controls  trial,  265,  266. 

FRAUD, 

fraudulent  misrepresentation    affecting   priority,    155. 

may  affect  amount,  127. 

mis-statements  presumed  fraudulent,  95,  121. 

FUEL, 

lien  of  principal  contractor  for  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 
right  to  lien  for  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 


INDEX.  743 

IReferences  are  to  sections.] 
FUND, 

lien  of  subcontractor  on,  under  Ohio  statute,  59. 

FURNACES, 

a  structure,  under  Ohio  law,  44. 
when  subject  to  lien,  14. 

FUTURE  ADVANCES, 

See  Payment. 

mortgage  given  to  secure,  160. 
prior  lien,  when,  160. 
when  in  installments,  160. 

G 

GAS  MACHINE, 

when  subject  to  lien,  14. 

GAS  WELL, 

description  in  notice  of  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 
lien  for,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 
lien  of  principal  contractor,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 
subcontractor's  lien  on,  under  Ohio  statute,  88. 
subject  to  lien,  under  Ohio  law,  44. 

GENERAL  DENIAL, 

evidence  under,  253. 

new  matter  cannot  be  raised  by,  253. 

what  issues  raised  by,  253. 

GENERAL  MANAGER, 

not  entitled  to  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

GRADING, 

lien  for,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

GREAT  BRITAIN, 

has  no  lien  law,  1. 

GUARANTORS  OF  CONTRACT,  49. 

.GUARDIAN, 

cannot  make  contract,  30. 

how  affected  by  costs,  302. 

Interest  of  ward,  when  liable,  139. 

not  owner,  26. 

not  owner,   under   Ohio  statute,  44. 


744  INDEX. 

IReferences  are  to  sections.] 

H 
HEAD  CONTRACTOR, 

See   PfilNCIPAL   COXTBACTOB. 

HEATING  APPARATUS, 

subject  to  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 
when  subject  to  lien,  14. 

HEIR, 

liability  for  lien  of  ancestor,  139,  155. 
not  owner,  26. 
party  to  suit,  227. 

HOLDER  OF  MORTGAGE,  11. 

See  Mortgage. 

HOMESTEAD, 

consent   of   wife,   32. 

covered  by  lien,  142. 

not  exempt,  unless  so  made  by  statute,  10. 

when  wife  must  consent,  24,  25. 

HOUSES, 

See  Buildings. 
double,  85. 
lien  statement,  85. 
structure,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

HUSBAND, 

as  party,  227. 

name  of,  sufficient,  107. 

HUSBAND  AND  WIFE, 

See  Married  Womex. 
community  property  of,  26. 

dower  and  curtesy  rights,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 
husband  cannot  bind  wife  for  improvements  on  her  property,  25. 
parties  under  Indiana  statute,  216. 
husband  without  power  to  charge  wife's  estate,  under  Indiana 

statute,  45a. 
presumption  of  authority,  24,  25,  31. 
when  contract  implied,  24,  25. 
when  husband  may  act  for  wife,  31. 

I 

ICE  MACHINE, 

when  subject  to  lien,  14. 


INDEX.  745 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
IDENTICAL  PROPERTY, 
what  is,  179. 

ILLEGAL  STRUCTURE, 
no  lien  for,  32. 

IMPAIRMENT, 

lien  may  not  be  impaired  after  becoming  vested,  45a. 

IMPLIED  CONTRACT, 

as  to  improvements,  35. 

controlled  by  lien,  36. 

estoppel  amounting  to,  35. 

knowledge  sufficient,  35. 

may  support  lien,  35. 

none  presumed,  when,  37. 

on  wife's  property,  37. 

test  of,   35. 

under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

what  will  authorize,  34. 

work  on  building  not  sufficient,  35. 

IMPROVEMENT, 

building  and  office,  12. 

digging  well,  13. 

painting  and  glazing,  12. 

papering  and  decorating,  12. 

personalty,  12. 

putting  up   lightning  rods,  12. 

scenery  in  opera  house,  12. 

tanks  and  sheet  iron  floor,  12. 

tearing  down,  13. 

upholstering  hall,  12. 

when  means  independent  structure,  12. 

wind  mill,  12. 

IMPROVEMENTS, 

action  brought  when  removed,  199. 

contract  in  writing,  33. 

husband  contracting  for  on  wife's  land,  36. 

implied  contract  for,  35,  36. 

improvement  leases,  27. 

mere  knowledge  will  not  bind  owner,  36. 

mortgage  priority  over,  162. 

on  property  of  wife,  32,  37. 

priority  as  to,  153. 


746  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
IMPROVEMENTS— Continued. 

subject  to  lien,  under  Ohio  law,  44. 
value  of,  paid  out  of  proceeds  of  sale,  287. 
wlien  lessee's  interest  held,  27. 
when  lessor's  interest  held,   27. 


IMPLIED  WAIVER, 


INCUMBRANCE, 


See  Waiver. 


See  LIE^^s,  Priority. 
change  of  form,  94. 
effect  of  filing  claim,  94. 
intervening  between  liens,  146. 
partnership,  94. 
right  to  contest  sale,  275. 
stands  on  same  ground  as  convej'ance,  151,  152. 

INCUMBRANCER, 
costs,  299. 

prior,  affected  by  sale,  279. 
prior  payment  out  of  proceeds,  287. 
subsequent,  as  parties,  228. 

INDEBTEDNESS, 

when  accrues,  94. 

INDEMNITY  BOND  AGAINST  LIENS, 
action  on  regulated  by  code,  172. 
affected  by  original  contract,  168. 
all  affected  may  bring  action,  172. 
beneficiary  must  have  interest,  169. 
breach  must  be  the  same  as  mentioned  in  bond,  170. 
construed  strictly  as  affecting  the  surety,  168. 
defenses  to  action,  172. 
estoppel,  172. 
interest  included,  172. 
joint  and  several,  172. 
liable  when,  171. 

limited  to  recover  penalty  of,  170. 
may  cover  attorney  fees,  170. 

not  necessary  to  be  given  at  time  original  contract  made,  169. 
owner  may  require,  168. 
required  on  public  work,  169,  171. 
setting  out  terms  of  principal  contract,  172. 
strictly  construed,  169. 


INDEX.  747 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
INDEMNITY  BOND  AGAINST  LIENS— Continued. 
surety  estopped,  when,  170. 
surety,  when  not  liable,  170. 
void  under  unconstitutional  statute,  when,  169. 
when  only  matter  of  protection,  168. 
when  void  as  without  consideration,  169. 

INDIANA, 

acquisition  of  lien  by  principal  and  subcontractor,  82. 
attorney's  fees  under  statute,  300. 

character  of  labor  or  material  allowing  lien,  under  Indiana  stat- 
ute, 45a. 
claim  for  wages,  46. 
complaint  by  material  man,  217. 
complaint  or  petition  to  enforce  lien,  216. 
consolidation   of  actions,   216. 
contracts  with  owner,  45a. 
date  of  lien,  83. 

demand  not  required  as  condition  to  action,  216. 
description  of  premises  in  notice,  83. 
duration  of  lien,  83. 

effect  of  destruction  of  building,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 
effect  of  removal  of  buildings  on  priority,  148a. 
estate   or   interest  subject  to   lien,   45a. 
exemptions,  84. 

extent  of  land  included  in  lien,  45a. 
form  of  notice  of  lien,  84. 

form  of  notice  to  lienholder  to  commence  suit,  202. 
general  manager  not  entitled  to  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 
husband  and  wife  as  parties,  216. 
judgment  in  action  to  enforce,  216. 
leasehold  subject  to   lien,  45a. 

lien  as  dependent  on  whether  claim  due  or  not  due,  82. 
meaning  of  "all  persons,"  45a. 
necessity  for  contract,  45a. 
necessity  of  itemized  statement,  83. 
notice  or  statement  of  lien,  83. 

owner  may  require  lienholder  to  commence  suit,  203. 
parties  to  actions,  216. 
personal  liability  of  owner,  289. 

petition  or  complaint  against  principal  contractor,  217. 
petition  or  complaint  by  subcontractor,  217. 
priorities,   84,  148a. 
priority  as   against  mortgages,   148a. 
prioHty  as  against  wife's  inchoate  interest,  148a. 


748  INDEX, 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
I'SBIAX  A— Continued. 

priority  of  lien  for  repairs,  14Sa. 

prorating  claims,  216. 

remedies,  216. 

requisites  of  form  of  notice,  83. 

rigtit  to  lien  for  rent  and  fuel,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

separate  or  joint  liens,  45a. 

statute  giving  contractors'  and  subcontractors'  liens,  45,  45a. 

taking  note  waiver  of  lien,  45a. 

term   "all  persons"   includes   corporations,   45a. 

trial,  216. 

when  action  deemed  commenced,  216. 

when  action  to  foreclose  to  be  brought,  83. 

when  foreclosure  commenced,  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 

when  lien  attaches,   83,   148a. 

when  lien  to  be  filed,  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 

when  and  where  action  brought,  216. 

who  may  acquire  liens,  45,  82. 

INFANTS, 

See  Minors. 
estate  of  subject  to  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

INFORMATION  AND  BELIEF, 
affidavit  on,  120. 

INJUNCTIONS, 

when  allowed,  263. 

when  allowed  to  restrain  action,  201,  202. 

IN  PERSONAM, 

enforcement  of  lien  is  not,  197. 

IN   REM, 

judgment  should  be,  271. 

personal    service    not   necessary,    271. 

proceedings   to   foreclose    lien,   196. 

INSANE, 

party    defendant,    representative    substituted,    230. 

INSOLVENCY, 

priority    of    workmens'    liens,    148a. 


INDEX.  749 

\_References  are  to  sections. '\ 
INSTALLMENTS, 

See  Future  Advances. 
assignment  of  debt  carries,  167. 
filing  amount  due,  128. 
subcontractors'    lien    on,    64,    65. 

INSTRUCTIONS  TO  JURY, 

See  Juby. 
as  in  ordinary  cases,  268. 
formal  matters  need  not  be,  268. 
law  for  court,  268. 

matter  not  in  issue  should  not  be  charged,  268. 
matters  without  evidence  should  not  be  charged,  268. 

INSURANCE, 

not  subject  to  lien,  139. 

INTENT, 

general  sale  not  sufficient,  21,  22. 

liberal  construction,  21,  22. 

materials  furnished  with  intent  to  use  on  particular  building, 

21,  22. 
services  must  be  furnished  with  intent  to  go  into  building,  21, 

22. 
when  controls  and  makes  property  subject  to,  21,  22. 

INTEREST, 

included  in  lien,   126. 

in  order  of  sale,  274. 

payment  by  owner  into  court  to  stop,  215. 

recovery  on  indemnity  bond,  172. 

subject  to  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

usurious  intent,  126. 

INTEREST  IN  LAND  LIABLE, 

.     See  Property  Covered  by  Lien. 

INTERRUPTION  OP  WORK,  129. 

INTERVENTION, 

right  to  in  suit,  230,  231.' 

IRRIGATION  DITCH, 

how  described  in  statement,  115, 


750  INDEX. 

IReferences  are  to  sections.] 
ISSUE, 

See  Pleadings — Evidence. 
all  material  facts  must  be  proven,  252. 
denial  that  lien  has  been  properly  maintained  raises  the  issue 

of  fact,  251. 
if  evidence  offered  not  material  is  a  nullity,  251. 
judgment  must  be  warranted  by,  273. 
material  allegation,  what  is,  251. 
new  material  facts  must  be  pleaded,  252. 
proof  must  sustain  allegations  of  pleadings,  254. 
questions  of  fact,  267. 
questions  of  law,  267. 
responding  sufficiently  to  in  finding,  270. 
title  to  property  is  not  general,  251. 
variance  between  averments,  pleadings  and  proof,  254. 
variance  between  proof  and  statement,  254. 
what  is,  251. 

ITEMIZED  ACCOUNT, 

See  Statement. 
apportionment  of  items,  117. 
courts  cannot  supply  omission,  117. 
Immaterial  omissions  disregarded,  117. 
lumping  charges,  117. 
material  for  different  houses,  117. 
quantity  and  measurement,  117. 
rules  for  determining,  117. 
separate  owner,  117. 
set  out  in  petition,  when,  243. 
subcontractor's  must  file,  116. 
sufficient,   117. 
what  is,  116. 
when  required,  116.  \ 

ITEMS, 

error  in,  121. 

J 
JOINDER  OF  ACTION, 

all  interested  should  be  made  parties  defendant  or  plaintiff,  204. 

each  claim  should  be  tried  on  its  merits,  204. 

pre-existing  liens  considered,  204. 

when  different  parties   may  join   in   same   proceeding,   204. 

where   structure  extends  over  land  of  several,   204. 

JOINT  LIENS, 

under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 


INDEX.  751 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
JUDGMENT, 

See  Personal  Judgment — Order  of  Sale. 
assignment  of  debt  carries  right  to,  167. 
averments  of  the  petition  must  conform  to,  273. 
certainty  required  in,  272. 
consideration  other   than  money,   293,   294. 
contiguous  lots,  lien  on,  272. 
continuous  lien,  131. 
default  upon,  271. 
default  when  allowed,  272. 

erroneous   against  one,   where  two   are   liable,   273. 
evidence  sustained  by,  273. 
form  of,   271. 

governed  by  law  of  forum,  272. 
identity  of  property  shown,  272. 
in  rem,  should  be,  271. 
issues  warranted  by,  273. 
lien  comes  within,  when,  271. 

on  mechanic's  lien,  analogous  to  foreclosure  of  mortgage,  271. 
personal,  not  waiver,  174. 
personal  service,  when  required,  167. 
sale,  273. 

several  contracts  specified  amount  in  each,  271. 
several  persons  should  designate  what,  from  each,  271. 
should  designate  laad  to  be  taken,  271. 
under  Indiana  statute,  216. 
under  Ohio  statute,  215. 
vacated  on  appeal,  298. 
when  can  be  given  for  deficiency,  284. 
when  prior  to  lien,  154. 

JUDICIAL  NOTICE, 

facts  of,  need  not  be  alleged,  236. 

JURAT, 

claim  or  statement,  120. 

JURISDICTION, 

amount  of  controversy  determines,  212. 

burden  on  plaintiff  to  show,  257. 

concurrent,  212. 

court  in  locality  of  structure,  212. 

equity  or  common  law,  212. 

must  be  served  with  process  to  give,  21. 

not  waived  by  filing  demurrer  or  answer,  249. 

particular  court  depends  upon  statutory  provision,  212. 


752 


INDEX. 


\_References  are  to  sections.'] 
JURISDICTION— Continued. 

properly  acquired,  may  render  personal  judgment,  284. 
property  need  not  be  seized  to  be  acquired,  197. 
United  States  Court  seizing  may  retain,  212. 
when  court  has,  error  to  dismiss  without  hearing,  263. 

JURY, 

See  Instructions  to  Jury,  Trial,  Verdict. 
instructions  to,  268. 
questions  of  fact  submitted   to,  267. 
right  of  trial  to,  265,  266. 
right  to  trial  by,  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 
view  of  premises  by,  266. 

JURY  TRIAL, 

not  entitled  to  on   foreclosure   of  lien,  196. 

K 

KNOWLEDGE, 

effect  of  owner's,  under  Indiana  statute,  82. 

effect  of  wife's  knowledge  of  husband's  contracts  for  her,  38,  39. 

KNOWLEDGE  OF  SUBCONTRACTOR'S  CLAUNI, 

affecting  payment,  66,  67. 

L 
LABOR, 

architect  included,  16. 

bookkeeper,  16. 

commissions,  16. 

contract  may  not  control,  16. 

cooking  for  men,  17. 

furnished  for  unknown  purpose,  21. 

on  credit  of  building,  21. 

on  credit  of  individual,  21. 

on  general  account,  21. 
in  a  particular  building,  21. 
intent  with  which  furnished,  21. 
must  be  for  building,  17,  21. 
no  priority  over  materials,  144,  145. 
not  required  on  the  premises,  17. 
overseer  of  farm  hands,  16. 
repairing  roads,  streets  and  ditches,  44. 
superintendent,  16. 
transporting  material,  17. 
what  is  included,  16. 


INDEX.  753 

[References  are  to  sections.l 
LABORER, 

dirt-haulers  entitled,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

entitled  to  direct  lien,  32,  43. 

priority  of  liens  in  case  of  insolvency,  148a. 

LACHES, 

lien  may  be  lost  by,  188. 

LAND, 

described  in  claim  or  statement,  103. 

description  of,  33. 

extent  covered,  under  Ohio  law,  44. 

LANDLORD, 

See  Leaseholder. 
leasehold  subject  to  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 
lien  created  by  tenant,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

LAW, 

amended  as  to  filing  notice,  35. 

applies  to  future  contracts,  2. 

change  or  repeal,  6. 

civil,  recognized  justice  of  lien,  1. 

common — no  lien  under,  1. 

constitutionality,  4. 

construction,   8. 

controlling  procedure,  5. 

controlling  right,  5. 

inconsistent  act,  5. 

liberal  construction,  8. 

no  extra-territorial  effect,  3. 

no  retroactive  effect,  7. 

not  repealed  by  implication,  5. 

of  a  general  nature,  3. 

place  where  buildings  located,  controls,  3. 

State  court's  construction,  8. 

strict  construction,  8. 

time  of  procedure,  may  be  extended,  7. 

vested  right  under,  6. 

LAW  OF  PLACE, 

determines  construction  of  lien   right,  44. 

LEASE, 

improvements    under,    27. 
lessee   bound,    27. 
lessor  bound,  27. 

48 


754  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'] 
LEASEHOLD, 

destroyed  by  fire  how  affects,  141. 

forfeiture  of,  does  not  divest  lien,  187. 

judgment  affecting  under   Indiana  statute,  216. 

landlord  liable  when,  141,  142. 

lienable  only  to  interest  of  lessee,  141. 

none  after  term  expires,  141. 

priority  of,  as  affecting,  153. 

subject  to  lien,  11,  141. 

subject    to    lien    under    Ohio    statute,    44. 

subject  to  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

where  owner  purchases  lessee's  interest,  141. 

LESSEE, 

when  owner,  26. 

LESSOR, 

claim  for  rent,  prior  when,  153. 

LIEN, 

See    Claim    or   Statement,    Foreclosure,    Property    Co\t:red   by   LrEN, 

Priority. 
definition,  2. 

furnishing  materials  to  contractor,  64. 
furnishing  materials  to  materialmen,  64. 
furnishing  materials   to   subcontractors,   64. 
none  by  agreement,   2. 
notice   to   owner,   when   required,   74,   77. 
origin,   1. 

perfection   of,    71-73. 

persons  entitled  to  not  under  direct  contract,  58. 
presumption  that  plaintiff's  claim  is,  256. 
rests  on  equitable  doctrine,  2. 

LIEN  BY  DIRECT   CONTRACT, 
contractors,  49. 
who  are  laborers,  47. 
who  are  principal  contractors,  43. 
workmen   and  materialmen,  43,   47. 

LIEN  NOT  UNDER   DIRECT  CONTRACT, 
rests  on  equitable  principles,  53. 
constitutionality,  53. 
contract  giving,  55. 
contract  need  not  be  in  writing,  55. 


INDEX.  755 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
LIEN  NOT  UNDER  DIRECT  COlSiTRACT— Continued. 
different  systems,  53,  54. 

must  be  within  scope  of  principal  contract,  54. 
no  lien  on  individual  credit  of  contractor,  53. 
no  privity  of  contract  between  owner  and  subcontractor,  53. 
notice  to  owner,  56. 
statute  must  be  followed,  55. 
work  on  public   buildings,   53. 

LIENS  AND  INCUMBRANCES, 

attachment   prior   to    mechanic,    154. 

curtesy  superior,  153. 

decedent's  debts   superior,  153. 

distinction  between  buildings  and  improvements,  153. 

dower  superior,   153. 

execution   affecting   mechanic,   154. 

judgment  superior,  154. 

knowledge  affecting,  154. 

law  in  force  at  time  obligation  fixed,  will  show,  151,  152. 

leasehold  liable,   153. 

lien  superior  when  building  may  be  removed,  151,  152. 

mechanic  must  perfect,  before  it  has  priority,  154. 

mechanic's  lien  must  be  perfected  as  statute  requires,  151,  152. 

notices   determining   rights    of    subcontractor,   154. 

personal   property  loses  its  identity,  151,  152. 

precedent  conditions  as   affecting,  154. 

same  as  conveyances,  151,  152. 

taxes  superior  to  mechanics'  liens,  153. 

valid,  prior   to   mechanic's  liens,  151,  152. 

LIGHTING  APPARATUS. 

when  subject  to  lien,  12,  14. 

LIME  KILN, 

not  subject,  12. 

LIMITATION  OF  ACTION, 

See  Foreclosure. 

action  brought  before  time,  premature,  214. 

action  by  one  cannot  extend  time  for  another,  218. 

after  period  expired,  220. 

calculation  of  time,  213. 

cessation  of  work   as   determining,  218. 

completion    of    work   as    determining,    218. 

delivery  fixing  time,   218. 


756  INDEX. 

^References  are  to  sections.'\ 
LIMITATION  OF  ACTION— Continued. 

each  party  must  be   within  time  limit,   219. 

effect  of  delay  beyond  statutory  period,  219. 

effect  of  extending  credit,  216. 

enactment  of  new  law  similar  to  old,  extends,  213. 

equity  will  not  extend  time,  213. 

general  statute  may  apply  when,  213. 

going  into   trial  on   merits   waives,   214. 

Indiana  statute,   216. 

lost  by  negligence,  when,  219. 

money  paid  into  court  extends,  213. 

must  be  brought  within  statutory  time,  213,  214. 

necessity  of  obtaining  judgment  against,  within  time,   219. 

parties  may  waive,  213. 

subcontractor  within  time  limit  when,  218. 

suit  is  commenced  when,  219. 

under   Ohio    statute,    215. 

LIS  PENDENS, 

averment  of  notice  of,  243. 
under   Ohio   statute,    81. 

LOSS   OF  LIEN, 

See  Waiveb. 

by  bankruptcy,  190. 

by  death  of  owner,  187. 

by  delay,  188. 

by  destruction  of  building,  186. 

by  destruction  of  building  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

by  going  into  the  hands  of  a  receiver,  187. 

by  judicial  sale,  188. 

by  merger,  188. 

by  payment  of  debt,  191,  192. 

by   payment   to    subcontractor,   195. 

by  property  situated  in  two  states,  186. 

by  release,  189,  190. 

by  removal  of  building,  186. 

by   rescinding  contract,   186. 

by  surrender  of  leasehold  interest,  187. 

by  transfer  of  title,  187. 

LOSS  OF  TIME, 

does  not  give  a  lien,  16. 


INDEX.  757 

^References  are  to  sections.'\ 
LOT  OF  LAND, 

filing  claim   on,    85. 

subject   to   lien  under  Ohio   statute,  44. 

what  are  contiguous   lots,  85. 

what  constitutes,  132,  133. 

what  is,  85. 

when  one  claim  will  cover  different  lots,  85. 

LUMP  JOB, 

averment  in  statement,  116. 

LUNATIC  ASYLUM, 

not  liable,  10. 

M 
MACHINERY, 

lien   for   under   Indiana  statute,  45a. 

meaning  of  term  in  Ohio  statute,  44. 

MACHINERY  USED   IN  CONSTRUCTION, 
not  subject,  18,  19. 

MANDAMUS, 

may  be  applied  for  payment  of  money  on  public  buildings,  10. 

MANUAL  LABOR, 

lien  for  in  mining,  44. 

MANUFACTORY, 

a  structure  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

MAP, 

of  premises  in  description,  103. 

MARRIED   WOMEN, 

See  Husband  and  Wife. 
averred  in  statement,  106. 

capable  of  contracting  under  Ohio   statute,  44. 
community  property  husband   may   bind,   31. 
contracts   with   under   Indiana   statute,   45a. 
contracts  with,  under  Ohio  statute,  38,  39. 
estopped  by  her  acts,  31. 

fraudulent  collusion  with  husband  will  bind  her,  31. 
may  make  contract,  26,  27,  32. 

no  presumption  that  husband  is  agent  because  wife  had  knowl- 
edge of  improvement,  31. 
property  liable,  10. 
representations  will  bind  her,  31. 


758  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'] 
MARRIED  WOMEN— Continued. 

separate  property  liable,  10. 

statute  sometimes  gives  husband  authority,  31. 

MATERIAL  ALLEGATION, 

what  is,  251,  252. 

MATERIALMEN, 

claim    prior    to    contractor,   144,    145. 
contract  with   principal  contractor,  58. 
entitled    to    direct    lien    when,    43.-^ 
entitled  to  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 
form  of  petition  by  under  Indiana  statute,  217. 
includes  what  terms,  47.  — j-" 
no  priority  between,  144,  145.  •^> 
relation   to  subcontractors,  58.    ""^ 

MATERIALS, 

averment  of  use  in  building,  236,  238. 

barrels  of  lime,  18. 

completed   house   not   included,   18. 

description  of,  in  claim  or  statement,  108. 

evidence  to  support,  furnishing  for  building,  269. 

for  which  lien  allowed  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

furnished  for   unknown  purpose,   22. 

on  credit  of  building,  20. 

on  credit  of  individual,  22. 

on  general  account,   22. 
in  state,  IS. 

furnishing  of,   as  controlling  priority,  146. 
furnishing   raises   presumption   of  lien,   173. 
includes  in  the  rough,  18. 
intent   with   which   furnished,    21. 
kind  giving  lien,  18. 
machinery   in   construction,   18. 
meaning   of   term    under   Ohio   statute,    44. 
money  advanced  for,  15. 
must  be  included  in  contract,  15. 
must  be  used  in  the  building,   22. 
no  priority  over  labor,  144. 
not    delivered    in    state,    18. 
not  used  in  building,  19. 
patents,  15. 

penalty   for    wrongful   use    of,    23. 
scaffolding,  15,  18. 
sod  in  park,  15,   IS. 


INDEX.  759 


[References  are  to  sections.'^ 
MATERIALS— Con^inwed. 
suitable,  20. 

temporary  bridge,  15,  18. 
tools,   18. 

use   shown   in  lower  court,  296. 
value   of,   under   lien,    127. 
waiver  of  kind,  20. 
when  title  vests  under  Ohio   statute,  44. 

MATTERS  TO  BE  SPECIALLY  PLEADED, 
when   must   be,   253. 

MERGER, 

loss  of  lien  by,  188. 

MEXICO, 

has  no   lien  law,   1. 

MILL, 

lien  for  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 
lien  on,  covers  what  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 
structure   under  Ohio   statute,  44. 
subcontractor's  lien  on  under  Ohio  statute,  88. 

MINES, 

lien  of  laborer  in,   under  Ohio   statute,  44. 
lien  upon  for  labor,  44. 

MINOR, 

See  Infants. 

cannot  make  contract,  29,  30. 

incapable  of  contracting  under  Ohio    statute,  44. 

right  to  lien,  44. 

MISDESCRIPTION, 

effect  of   inadvertent,   under   Ohio   statute,   81. 
effect  of  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 

MISTAKE, 

See  Errors. 

inadvertant,  121. 

in   description   under   Indiana  statute,   83. 

may  be  material,  121,  122. 

MODIFICATION, 

of  contract,  49. 


760  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'\ 
MONEY, 

advanced  not  included  as  materials,  15. 
not  subject,  32. 

MONEY  HAD  AND  RECEIVED, 

petition  for  by  subcontractor  against  owner,  215. 

MORTGAGE, 

See  Pbiokity. 

advances,  when  invalid,  160. 
after  building  is  done,  158. 
commencement  of  work,   157,   158. 

contract  made,  158. 

materials  furnished,  158. 
before  claim  filed,  156. 

commencement  of  work,  156. 

lien  attaches,  159. 

materials  furnished,  156. 
chattel  becomes  void  if  property  loses  identity,  155. 
costs   affecting  prior,   299. 
dates  from  time  of  record,  161. 
deed  absolute  may  be  considered  as,  155. 
fictitious,  can  have  no  priority,  155. 
knowledge  estopping  holder  of,  161. 

labor  and  materials  enhancing  value  does  not  affect,  155. 
money  received  from,  used  on  building,  157. 
must    be    bona   fide    to    be    prior,    155. 
on  same   property,   amounting  to  waiver,  179. 
parties   bound   by   statements    in,   156. 
payment  of,  defeats,  155 

persons  taking,  bound  by  appearance  of  property,  157. 
priority,  164. 

dates  from  filing,  159. 

over  improvements,  162. 

same   as  conveyances   and  incumbrances,  155. 
priority   of   lien   under   Indiana   statute,   148a. 
priority  of  lien  under  Ohio   statute,  147. 
purchase   money   mortgage   prior,   164. 
recorded  after  delivery,  161. 
renewal  affecting  priority,  155. 

MORTGAGEES, 

as  party  to  suit,  228." 
right  to  contest  sale,  275. 


INDEX.  761 

[References  are  to  sections.'] 
MORTGAGES  AS  AFFECTING  PRIORITY, 

added  value  of  labor  or  material  does  not  affect  mortgage,  155. 
advanced  consideration  may  be  money  or  material,  160. 
after   work   commenced    subject   to    lien,    158. 
agreement  of  mortgagee  as  to  priority  prevails,  161. 
bonds  same  as  mortgage,  155. 
change    of    contract,    157. 

chattel  mortgages  lost  where  property  loses  its  identity,  155. 
claims  affected  by  time  work  is  done,  158. 
commencement  of  building,  156. 
consideration  in  installments,  161. 
continuous  piece  of  work  treated  as  one,  158. 
date  of  filing  is  conclusive  proof  of,  159. 
equity  will  not  aid  mechanic,   155. 
estoppel  affecting  mortgagee,  161. 
filing  of  claim  affecting,  156. 

future    advances    prior    to    mechanic's    lien,   160. 
general  rule  as  to,  155. 

given  after  making  of  contract  of  commencement  of  work,  157. 
heir  takes  subject  to,  157. 
mechanic   must  perfect,  or   not  prior,  157. 

mechanics  must  inform  themselves   as  to  the  interest  of  con- 
tracting owner,  156. 
money  secured,  not  used  as  agreed,  155. 
money  used  for   payment  of  material,  157. 
money  used  in  payment  of  previous  mortgage,  155,  157. 
mortgage  before  lien  attaches,  159. 
mortgage   dates   from    the    time    of   record,    161. 
mortgage  must  be  bona  fide,  155. 
must  be   instrument   entitled   to   record,   161. 
omission  of  immaterial  matter  does  not  affect,  155. 
parties   bound   by   statements   in,   156. 
purchaser  at  judicial  sale  bound  by  record,  158. 
recording  before  delivery,  161. 
renewal  of,  does  not  lose  priority,  155. 

rests  upon  fact  of  filing  before  mechanic's  right  attaches,  156. 
similar  to  conveyances,  155. 
statutory   provisions   control,   155,  158. 
subcontractor  stands  in  same  position  as  principal,  158. 
technical  error  will  not  defeat,  159. 
unrecorded  release  and  new  one  taken,  157. 
when   made   before   contract,   155. 

MORTGAGOR, 

property  liable,  11. 
when  owner,  26. 


762  INDEX. 

\_References  are  to  sections.'\ 
MOTION, 

to  strike  out,  249. 

N 

NAME, 

contractor's  averred  in  claim  or  statement,  112. 
employer's  averred  in  claim  or  statement,  112. 
owner's  contained   in  statement,  107. 
subcontractor's  averred  in  claim  or  statement,  112. 

NARROW   CONSTRUCTION, 

See  Statutes,   Strict  Coxstbuction. 

NEW  MATTER, 

not  allowed  in  answer,  250. 

NEW  YORK  SYSTEM, 

as  to  rights  of  subcontractor,  53,  72. 
notice  under,  64. 

NON-JOINDER, 

of  parties,   made   In   court  below,   296. 

NON-LIENABLE  ITEMS, 

questions   raised  in   lower  court,  296. 
wrongly  in  statement,  121. 

NON-RESIDENTS, 

entitled  to  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

NOTICE, 

affecting  payment,   67. 

conveyance,  157. 

by  owner  to  lien  holder  to  commence  suit  in  Ohio  and  Indiana, 

202,  203. 
by  subcontractor  to  fellow  laborers  under  Ohio  statute,  89. 
by  subcontractor,  under  Indiana  statute,  290. 
description  of  premises  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 
effect  of  claiming  too  much,   under  Indiana  statute,   83. 
filing  conveyances,    notice    to    purchaser,   150. 
foreclosure   of  lien,   notice   to   purchaser,   150. 
form  of  subcontractor's,  to  fellow  laborers  under  Ohio  statute, 

87. 
form  of,  to  owner,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 
form  under  Indiana  statute,  84. 
how  served,  90. 


INDEX.  763 

IReferences  are  to  sections.'] 
NOTICE— Continued. 

money  received,   157. 

necessity  for  notice  for  claim  for  wages  under  Indiana  statute, 

46. 
of  filing  claim,  90 
of  intention  to  claim,  102. 
of  lien,  296. 

of  lien  to  owner  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 
of  subcontractor's   claim,   67. 

purchaser  must  observe  appearance  of  property,  157. 
question  made  in  lower  court,  296. 
record  gives  constructive,  276. 
service  under  Ohio  statute,  78. 

sufficiency  of  signature  to,  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 
time  when  owner  may  prevent  lien,  42. 
.   to  head  contractor  under  Ohio  statute,  92. 
to  owner 

amount  claimed,  76. 

by  mail,  77. 

calculating  time  limit,  75. 

certainty  required  in,  76. 

constructive,  not  recognized  by  statute,  77. 

contractor  must  give,  74. 

description  of  parties,  76. 

description  of  property,  77. 

equity   will   not  supply,   77. 

fact  averred  in  petition,  243. 

failure  and  delay  in  giving,  77. 

form  and  requisites,  75. 

given  to  agent,  74. 

given  to  person  held  responsible,  74. 

given  to  purchaser,  74. 

immaterial  errors,  76. 

may  be  waived,  74. 

must  be  as  statute  provides,  56. 

must  be  within  time  limit,  75. 

must  contain  satutory  requirement,   76. 

necessity  for,  74. 

necessity  of  written,  75. 

New   Jersey   rule,   75. 

notice  of  contract,  when   required,  56. 

operates  at  the  time  given,  77. 

operation  and  effect,  77." 

persons  to  whom  notice  may  be  given,'  74. 


764  INDEX. 

\_Referenfies  are  to  sections.'] 
NOTICE— Coniinwed. 

persons  who  may  give  notice,  74. 

service,  77. 

signature,   77. 

subcontractor  must  give,  74. 

substantial  compliance  required,  76. 

sufficient  if  party  received  it,  77. 

time  of  notice,  75. 

to  retain  subsequent  payments,  91. 

under  separate  contracts,  76. 

under  Indiana  statute,  83. 

when  admissible  evidence,  262. 

when  dispensed  with,  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 

when  may  be  averred  in  claim,  102. 

when  owner  must  be  notified  before  suit,  200. 

where  law  is  amended,  time  extended,  75. 

NUNC  PRO  TUNC  ENTRY, 

does  not  continue  lien,  131. 

O 

OATH, 

on  information   and  belief,  120. 

to  affidavit  of  principal  contractor  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

to  claim  or  statement,  120. 

OFFICER, 

may  administer  oath  to  statement,  120. 
with  whom  statement  filed,  86. 

OFFSETS, 

set  out  in  statement  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

OHIO, 

averments  of  petition  by  subcontractor,  215. 

averments   of   petition   in   action   to   enforce   lien,   215. 

by  whom  subcontractors  lien  filed  under  Ohio  statute,  88. 

character  of  structure  subject  to  lien,  44. 

character  of  work  entitling  subcontractor  to  lien,  61. 

competency  of  person  to  contract,  44. 

contents  of  affidavit  of  principal  contractor,  81. 

contracts  with  married  women,  38,  39. 

copy  of  contract  in  statement  of  principal  contract,  81. 

copy  of  statement  of  subcontractor  to  contractor,  92. 

curtesy  and  dower  as  giving  right  to  contract,  44. 

date  when  lien  of  principal  contractor  becomes  operative,  81. 

defenses  under  statute,  215. 


iNDtx.  .  765 

IReferences  are  to  sections.'] 
OHIO — Continued. 

description  of  land  in  statement  of  principal  contractor,  81. 

duration  of  lien,  81. 

duty  of  contractor  to  defend  suits  brought  by  other  contractors, 

206. 
effect  of  death  of  owner  on  rights  of  subcontractor,  52. 
effect  of  wrongful  payment  by  owner,  69,  70. 
equality  of  liens  upon  same  job,  147. 
estate  and  interest  subject  to  lien,  44. 
failure  to  satisfy  lien,  193, 

filing  notice  by  subcontractor  to  notify  fellow  laborers,  87. 
form  ot  aflSdavit  for  lien,  81. 

form  of  notice  to  lien  holder  to  commence  suit,  202. 
form  of  notice  to  owner,  81. 
form  of  petition  by  principal  contractor,  215. 
form  of  petition  by  subcontractor,  215. 
form  of  petition,  for  money  had  and  received  against  owner  by 

subcontractor,  215. 
form  of  petition  when  parties  act  under  contract,  215. 
form  of  subcontractor's  lien,  88. 
itemized  statement  of  principal  contractor,   81. 
kinds  of  action  to  enforce,  215. 
leasehold  subject  to  lien,  44. 
lien  for  mining,  44. 

lien  not  effective  beyond  county  where  filed,  44. 
lien  of  principal  contractor,  how  acquired,  81. 
lien  on  contiguous   lots,   137. 
lien  under  direct  contract  with  owner,  44. 
necessity  for  contract  to  support  subcontractor's  lien,  61 
necessity  of  notice  to  owner  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 
notice  of  subcontractor  to  owner  to  retain  payments,  91. 
owner  may  require  lien  holder  to  commence  suit,  202. 
parties  to  action  to  enforce  lien,  215. 
penalty  for   wrongful  use  of  material,  statute,  23. 
praecipe,  215. 

priority   of   subcontractor's    lien,   89. 

proceedings  when  defective  title  defeats  sale  of  property,  285. 
procedure  for  subcontractor's  lien,  62. 
pro  rata  payment  of  subcontractors,  148. 
receiver  as  party,  215. 
remedy  by  action,  215. 

remedy  of  subcontractor  against  contractor,  288. 
remedy  outside  foreclosure,  215. 
remedy  where  owner  suspends  work,  50. 
service  of  notice,  78. 


766  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'] 
OHIO — Continued. 

statement  to  contain  description  of  note  given  under  Ohio  stat- 
ute, 81. 
subcontractor's  lien  on  fund,   59. 
time  of  filing  lien  of  principal  contractor,  81. 
trial  by  jury,  215. 

trial   in  actions   to   enforce   liens,   215. 
venue  of  action  to  enforce  lien,  215. 
when  and  how  subcontractor  may  obtain  lien,  88. 
where  lien  must  be  filed,  81. 
who  can  file  lien  as  principal  contractor,  81. 
who  is  owner  under  statute,  28. 
who  may  acquire  subcontractor's  lien,   60. 

OIL  DERRICK, 

subject  to  lien  under  Ohio  law,  44. 

OIL  TANK, 

structure  under  Ohio  law,  44. 

OIL  WELL, 

lien  of  principal  contractor  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

may  be  structure,  12. 

subject  to  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

subject  to  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

■what  it  consists  of,  44. 

ORDER  OF  SALE. 

See  Judgment,   Personal  Judgjient. 

affecting  other  lienholders,  276. 

binding    parties    to    suit,    276. 

cannot  decree  specific  performance,  272. 

cannot,  if  property  is  not  subject  to  lien,  274. 

cannot  order  partition,  273. 

claim   considered,   275. 

claims  upon  separate  buildings,  274. 

collaterally   attacked,   276. 

controlled  by   statute,  277. 

dates  from  when,  275. 

defendant  may  exercise  choice  in  different  tracts,  277. 

entire  property  sold,  when,  274. 

equitable  interests  liable,  277. 

execution  of,  277. 

jurisdiction    of    court,    274. 


INDEX.  767 

[References  are  to  sections.'\ 
ORDER  OF  SAI^E— Continued. 
motion  to  arrest,  276. 
must  be  same  kind,  274. 

not  necessary  to  contain  order  of  distribution,  274. 
operates   upon  all   interested   parties,  275. 
owner   of   title   does   not   divest,    275. 
priority,  274. 

property  described  in,  should  conform  to  petition,  277. 
purchaser  pendente  lite,  how  affected,  275. 
setting  aside,   275,  276. 
statute  must  be  complied  with,  274. 
stay  of  when  granted,   277. 
subcontractor's  interest,  275. 
tenant's  interest  liable,   277. 
time,   length   of  controls,   274. 

ORDERS  ON  OWNER, 

See  Payment. 
by  contractor,  66,  67. 
when  payment  made,  66. 

ORIGIN  OP  LIEN. 

did  not  exist  at  common  law,  1. 
first  adopted  by  Maryland,  1. 
general    in    states,    1. 
Great  Britain  has  none,  1. 
Mexico  has  none,  1. 
recognized  by  civil  law,  1. 

OVERSEER  OF  FARM  HANDS, 
not  entitled  to,  16. 

OWNER, 

See  Contract,  Claims,  Property  Covered  by  Lien,  Notice. 

acquiring  title    afterwards   brings    within,    26. 

advanced  payments  made  by,  68. 

amount  covered  by  subcontractor's  lien,  127,  128. 

averment  in  petition  of  contract  with,  240. 

book  accounts  admissible  evidence,  260. 

by   curtesy   or  dower,   44. 

cannot  assume  the  right  to  pay  subcontractor,  195. 

commencement  of  work  as  affecting,  129. 

contract  implied  when,  35,  262. 

contract  controls  amount  due,  128. 

contract  must  be  with,  26. 

contractor  may  be  his  agent,  128. 


768  INDEX. 

^References  are  to  sections.'\ 
0WKER—C07itinued. 

defined  in  Ohio  statute,  28. 

delivery  of  materials   as   affecting,   129. 

discharge  in  bankruptcy,  191,  192. 

duty  to  retain  payments  due  contractor  under  Ohio  statute,  92. 

effect  of  assignment  for  creditors  under  Ohio  statutes,  44. 

equitable  right  sufficient  when,   26. 

estoppel  of,  35. 

evidence  as  to  liability,  259. 

failure  to  comply  with  statute  makes  liable,  128. 

form  of  notice  to,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

guardian,  26. 

guardian  and  administrator  not,  44. 

heirs  before  death  of  ancestor,  26. 

holder  of  leasehold,  26. 

includes  cestui  que  trust,  44. 

insurance  company,  rebuilding,  26. 

lessee,  27. 

liable  for  amount,  127. 

lien  under  direct  contract  with,  Ohio  statute,  44. 

may  require  contractor  to  defend  suits  brought  by  subcontrac- 
tors in  Ohio,  206. 

may  require  lien  holder  to  commence  suit  in  Ohio   and  Indi- 
ana, 202,  203. 

meaning  of  term  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

momentary  possession  not  sufficient,  26. 

must   be  capable   of   contracting,    44. 

necessity  for  contract  with,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

notice,  75-77. 

notice  to,  of  subcontractor  to  fellow  laborers,  under  Ohio  stat- 
ute, 87. 

or  agent,  30. 

payment,  wrongfully  made  by,  at  his  peril,  195. 

payment  into  court  to  stop  interest  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

personal  liability  of,  under  Indiana  statute,  289. 

possession  is  evidence  of,  26. 

premature  payments  made  by,  68. 

protection  by  indemnity  bond,  168,   169. 

protection  when  legally  obliged  to  pay,  195. 

purchaser  at  judicial   sale,  26. 

purchaser  in  possession,  26. 

selling  as  affecting,  129. 

tenant  in  common,  26. 

vendee  in  possession,  26. 

vendor,   27. 


INDEX.  769 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
OWlSiKR— Continued. 

when  bound  to  accept  order  for  payment,  66. 
when  owner  may  prevent  lien,  42. 
when   personally   liable,   284-286. 
widow,  26. 

OWNERSHIP, 

allegation  to  charge  separate  property  of  married  woman,  238. 

averment  in  claim,  106. 

evidence  as  to,  258. 

evidence  sufficient  to  show,  261. 

inchoate,  not  sufficient  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

necessary  to  make  property  liable  to  lien,  140. 

sufficient  averment,  106,  238. 


PAINTING, 

when  subject  to,  12. 

PAPERING, 

when  subject  to,  12. 

PARKS, 

lien  for  sodding  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

PARTIES, 

addition   of,    230. 

administrator,  227. 

adverse,  296. 

all  against  whom  priority  is  asserted  should  be,  223. 

all  claiming  lien,  proper,  229. 

all  persons  liable,  proper,  229. 

all  should  be  whose  interests  are  affected,  224. 

appeal,   who   may  take,    297. 

assignee    and    assignor    should   be   joined,   221. 

assignee  of  claims,  221. 

bound  by  decree,  276. 

by  intervention,  231. 

cestui   que  trust,  222. 

contractor,  229. 

contractor  and  subcontractor  cannot  join,  221. 

error,  who  may  prosecute,  297. 

executor,  227. 

heirs,  227. 

how   designated  in  claim,   101. 

husband,  when  should  be,  224. 


49 


770  INDEX. 

\_References  are  to  sections.'\ 
FARTIKS— Continued. 

incumbrancers,  228. 

interest   attaching  after   commencement  of   suit,   228. 
interest  required,  221. 
joinder  of  plaintiffs,  221. 
judgment  against  proper,  273. 
mortgagees,  228. 

must  be  served  to  constitute,  222. 
necessary,  222,  223. 

owner  at  time  suit  is  brought,  225,  226. 
owners  of  different  properties  in  same  action,  225. 
partnership,  223. 
pending  suit  as  affecting,  228. 
person   not  served  on  bond,   225. 

petition   must   state  cause   of   action   against   or   judgment   in- 
valid, 245. 
purchaser  while   suit  is  pending,  223. 
real  party  in  interest,  to  bring  suit,  221. 
statute  must  be  followed,  223. 
subcontractor,  229. 
subsequent  purchaser,  227. 
substitution  of,  230. 

sureties  on  bond,  223.  ' 

trustee,  228. 

under  assumed  name,  221. 
under  Indiana  statute,  216. 
under  Ohio  statute,  215. 
undisclosed   principal,    221. 
when  becomes  jurisdictional,   227. 
wife,  225. 

PARTITION, 

court  cannot  order  partition  among  claimants,  274. 

PARTNER, 

how  designated  in  claim,  101. 
may  bind  partnership,  30. 
may  sign  claim,  118. 
may  sign  verification,  119. 

PARTNERSHIP, 

action  against,  225. 

entitled  to  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

partner  may  transfer,  166. 

verification  of  affidavit  by,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 


INDEX.  771 

iReferences  are  to  sections.} 
PATENTS, 

not  subject,  18. 

PAYMENT, 

See  Future  Advances. 
accepting  promissory  note,  68. 
advanced,  68. 

estoppel,  180. 
application  of,  194. 
by  assignment  of  orders,  66. 
collusive,  67. 

demand  of,  need  not  be  alleged  in  petition,  236. 
effect  on  subcontractor  of  wrongful  payment  by  owner,  69,  70. 
evidence  of,  260. 

extension  of   time   does   not  constitute  a  waiver  of,  175. 
governed  by  stipulation  in  principal  contract,  55. 
made  according  to  contract,  66-68. 

made  different  from  requirements  of  original  contract,  184. 
must  be  in  good  faith,  68. 
obligation  to  make  must  be  averred,  241. 
orders  on  owners,  66,  67. 
pre-existing  debt,  68. 

premature,  68.  ; 

prior  to  expiration  of  period  allowed  to  file  liens,  68. 
pro  rata  of  subcontractors  under  Obio  statute,  148. 
time  of,  implied,  34. 
time  of,  when  must  be  stated,  34. 
unaccepted  orders,  not  sufficient,  167. 
when  must  be  shown  before  action,  79. 
when  time  must  be  stated  in  contract,  34. 
when  time  of  beyond  time  of  lien,  34. 
where  contracts  require  withholding  of,  34. 

PENALTY, 

failure  to  discharge  lien,  191. 
for  wrongful  use  of  material,  23. 

PENDENTE  LITE, 

purchaser  during,   275,  276. 

PENDING  SUIT, 

how  affects  action,  228. 

PENNSYLVANIA  SYSTEM, 

as  to  rights  of  subcontractor,  53,  72. 
notice  under,   64,  65. 


772  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'] 
PERFECTED   LIEN, 

its  assignment,  165-167. 
no  uniform   I'ule,  71,   73. 
statute  must  be  followed,  71. 

PERFORMANCE  OF  CONTRACT, 

See  Contract. 
abandonment,  64,  65. 
as  relating  to  subcontractors,  64,  65. 
averment  of,  240,  241. 
default  in  performance,  64,   65. 
estoppel  to  deny,  64,  65. 
evidence   as  to,   259. 

modification  of  principal  contract,  64,  65. 
performance  of  principal  contract  affecting  contractors,  49. 
performance  of  principal  contract  affecting  subcontractors,   65. 
rescission  of  principal  contract,  64,  65. 
substantial  performance,  64,  65. 

PERFORMANCE  OF  SUB-CONTRACT, 

See  Sub-Contkactors. 

PERSONAL  JUDGMENT, 

See  Judgment. 
against  OM^ner,  287. 
by  default,  287. 
contrariety  of  opinion,  284. 
court  may  grant,  when,  284. 

distinction  made   as  when  lien   right  fails,   284. 
owner  must  be  personally  liable,  287. 
ownership  need  not  be  averred  in  petition,  238. 
personal  service  required,  287. 
prayer  of   complaint,    284. 
privity  of  contract  required,  286. 

relinquishment  of  lien  does  not  affect  right  to,  286. 
subcontractor's  right,  286. 

PERSONAL  LIABILITY, 

See  Personal  Judgment.  Debt. 

PERSONAL   PROPERTY, 

lien  on,  for  miners   under  Ohio   statute,  44. 

loses   its   identity  and   subject  to   prior  claim,   151. 
PERSONAL  PROPERTY  NOT  CONNECTED  WITH  BUILDING 

not  subject  to  lien,  132. 

PERSONS    UNDER    DISABILITY, 

See  Minors. 
cannot  contract  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 


INDEX.  773 

[References  are  to  sections.'] 
PERSONS  WHO  MAY  ACQUIRE  LIEN, 
administrator  of  partnership,  9. 
any  person,  9. 
corporation,  9. 

member  of  voluntary  association,  9. 
municipal  corporations,  9. 
non-residents,  9. 

owner,  on   his  own  property,  9. 
partnerships,   9. 

PERSONS  WHO  MAY  ACQUIRE  LIEN  NOT  UNDER  DIRECT  CON- 
TRACT, 

employee    of    subcontractor,    58. 

material  furnished  must  not  be  inconsistent  with  principal  con- 
tract, 58. 
materialmen,  when  entitled  to,  58. 
right  rests  entirely  on  statute,  58. 
subcontractors   of  subcontractors,  not   included,   58. 
subcontractors,  who  are,  58. 

PETITION, 

See  Complaint,  Issue,  Parties. 
action  brought  by,  235. 
assignment  of  lien  when  to  aver,  236. 
averment  of  amount  due,  241. 

of  contract  with  owner,  236,  240,  241. 

of  defectiveness  of  services  or  labor,  236. 

of  improvements,  238. 

of  legality  of  claims,  234. 

of  nature   of  suit,   237. 

of  notice,  243,  244. 

of  ownership,  237,  238. 

of  ownership  when  personal  judgment  is  sought,  238. 

of  performance   of  conditions   precedent,  235. 

of  performance  of  work,  240. 

of  property  subject  to  lien,  237. 

of  statutory   requirements,   235. 

of  terms  of  contract,  240. 

of  time  of  payment,   240. 

that  improvement  is  beneficial,  240. 

that  items  were  furnished  in  time,  236. 

that  services  went  into  the  building,  239. 
averments  taken  more  strongly  against  pleader,  240. 
averment  unnecessary,  capacity  in  which  plaintiff  sues,  236. 


774  INDEX. 

IReferences  are  to  sections.] 
PFaTITWS— Continued. 

facts  of  which  court  may  take  judicial  notice,  236. 

matters  of  defense,  239. 

matters  of  record,  241. 

matters  set  forth  in  prior  pleading,  241. 

previous  demand  for  payment,  236. 

superfluous  matters,  235. 

that  materials  were  purchased  for  structure,  236. 
clerical  error  will  not  defeat,  244. 
averments  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 
by   subcontractor   against  owner  for  money  had   and   received, 

215. 
description  of  property,  237. 
detailed  statement,  when   required,  236,   244. 
exhibit  controls,   where   discrepancies   made,   241. 
facts,  not  conclusions,  must  be  stated,  244. 
form  of,  235. 

form  of,  by  principal  contractor  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 
form  of,  by  subcontractor,  215. 
form  of,  where  parties  act  under  contract,  215. 
Immaterial  defects  will   not  defeat,  236. 
itemized  statement,  when  must  contain,  243. 
multifarius,  236. 

necessity  of  averment  of  conditions  precedent  under  Ohio  stat- 
ute, 215. 
non-lienable   items  not  to   be  blended  with   lienable,  236. 
not  sufficient  to   set  out  note   and   allege  that  it  was  good  for 

work,  241. 
prayer  for  relief,  237. 

reference  to  account  as  exhibit  sufficient,  235. 
reference  to  filing  of  lien,  235. 
setting  forth  separate  steps  does  not  constitute  separate  cause 

of  action,  236. 
some   jurisdictions   called   bill,   complaint,    declaration,    235. 
subcontractor,    petition    of,    242. 

subcontractor  should  show  terms  of  contract  with  principal  con- 
tractor, 240. 
sufficiency  of  description,  237. 
under  Indiana  statute,  216. 
undenied   averment   sufficient   evidence,   261. 
verification,  244. 

PIPE  LINE, 

lien  for,  Ohio   statute,  44. 


INDEX.  ^  775 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
PLACE, 

making  contract,    32. 

where    action   brougtit    under    Indiana   statute,   216. 

wliere  claim  or  statement  to  be  filed,  86. 

PLAINTIFF, 

entitled  to  his  costs  when,  299. 

PLANS  AND  SPECIFICATIONS, 
when  part  of  contract,  32. 
when  must  be  recorded,  41. 
whether  subject  to  lien  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

PLEA, 

See  Answer. 

PLEADINGS, 

See  Issue,  Parties,  Petition,  Answer,  Cross-Petition,  Demurrer,  Reply. 
admissible  evidence,  260. 

by  subcontractor  under  Indiana  statute,  219. 
complaint  under  Indiana  statute,  216. 
description  of  premises  under  Indiana  statute,  216. 
form  of  complaint   against  principal  contractor  under   Indiana 

statute,  217. 
form  of  complaint  by  material  man,  217. 
form  of  complaint  by  subcontractor  in  Indiana,  217. 
form  of  petition  against  owner  by  subcontractor  for  money  had 

and  received,  215. 
form  of  petition  by  principal  contractor,  215. 
form  of   petition   by  subcontractor,  215. 
form  of  petition  when  parties  act  under  contract,  215. 
judgment   to   correspond   to,   273. 
under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

POSSESSION, 

as  evidence  of  ownership,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

lien  on  estate  of  purchaser  in  possession,  under  Indiana  statuLe, 

45a. 
evidence  of  title,  26. 
mechanic  holding  to  enforce  lien,  198. 

POWER  HOUSE, 

not  included,  12. 
PRAECIPE, 

under  Ohio  statute,  215. 


776  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'] 
PRAYER  FOR  RELIEF, 

does  not  determine  nature  of  action,  237. 

proper  in  petition,  237. 

specific   not  necessary  in  petition,  237. 

PREPONDERANCE, 

of  evidence,  261. 

PRESUMPTION, 

as   to   claim    being   under   mechanic's    lien    act,    256. 

as  to  continuous  contract,  256. 

as   to  furnistiing  of  materials,   256. 

as  to  making  contract,  256. 

as  to  payment  by  giving  of  note,  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

error  will  not  be  presumed,  298. 

of  time  lien  attaches,  256. 

under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

when  promissory  note  taken,  256. 

PRINCIPAL  CONTRACTOR, 

abandonment  of  work  by,  127. 

contract  between  and  owner  controls,  126. 

lien  of,  how  acquired,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

party,  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

priority  of  subcontractor's  lien,  89. 

service  of  copy  of  statement  on,  under  Ohio  statute,  92. 

subcontractor's   rights   and   amount  due,   127,   128. 

PRIORITY, 

as  against  mortgages,  under  Indiana  statute,  148a. 

as  against  wife's  inchoate  interest,  under  Indiana  statute,  14Sa. 

as   between    lien    and    wife's    inchoate    interest,   under    Indiana 

statute,   148a. 
assignee  of  contract  has  rights  of  assignor,   145. 
between  persons  in  the  same  class,  144. 
classification  of  preference,  146. 

continuance  and  loss  of,  under  Indiana  statute,   148a. 
contractor  must  yield  to   subcontractor,   144. 
conveyance  affecting — 

assignee    of   creditors    same   rights    as    assignor,   149. 

condition  of  premises,  notice  to  purchaser,  150. 

conveyance   after  right  of  lien  subject  to,  149. 

deed  filed,  notice  of  its  contents,  150. 

deed  made  subject  to  mechanic's  claim,  150. 

deed  must  be  entitled  to  record  to  operate  as  construc- 
tive notice,  149. 

made  during  progress  of  work,  150. 


INDEX.  777 

{References  are  to  sections.'] 
PRIORITY— Continued. 

mechanic   bound   to  know   title,   149. 

mechanic    not   bound    to    search    records    after    right    at- 
taches, 149. 

part  cannot  be  transferred  free  of  lien,  149. 

right  must  be  perfected,  149. 

trust  deed  not  prior,  149. 

voluntary,  149. 
equality  of  liens,  under  Ohio  statute,  147. 
depending  on  time  of  furnishing  materials  between,  144. 
intervening  liens,  how  affects,  146. 
liens  and  incumbrances — 
.   attachment,    154. 

curtesy,  153. 

decedent's  debts,  153. 

distinction   between   buildings    and    improvements,    153. 

dower,  153. 

execution,  154. 

judgment,  154. 

knowledge  affecting,  154. 

law  in  force  at  time  obligation  fixed,  will  show,  151. 

leasehold  liable,  153. 

lien  superior  when  building  may  be   removed,  151. 

mechanic  must  perfect  lien,  before  it  has  priority,  151,  154. 

notices  determining  rights  of  subcontractor,  154. 

personal  property  loses  its  identity,  151. 

precedent  conditions  as  affecting,  154. 

same    as    conveyances,    151. 

taxes,   153. 

mortgage — 

added  value  of  labor  or  material  does  not  affect  mortgage, 
155. 

advanced  consideration  may  be  money  or  material,  160. 

after  work  commenced  subject  to  lien,  158. 

agreement  of  mortgagee  as  to  priority  prevails,  161. 

bonds  same  as  mortgage,  155. 

change   of  contract,   157. 

chattel  mortgages  lost  where  property  loses  its  identity, 
155. 

claims  affected  by  time  work  is  done,  158. 

commencement  of  building   as   affecting,   156. 

consideration  in   installments,  161. 

continuous  piece  of  work  treated  as  one,  158. 

date  of  filing   is   conclusive   proof  of,    159. 

equity  will  not  aid  mechanic,  155. 


778  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.~[ 
VRIOBITY— Continued. 

estoppel   affecting   mortgagee,   161. 

filing  of  claim  affecting,  156. 

future   advances  prior  to  mechanic's  lien,   160. 

general  rule  as   to,   15.5. 

given    after   making    of   contract   or     commencement     of 
work,  157. 

heir  takes   subject  to,  155. 

mechanic  must  know  the  interest  of  contracting  owner, 
156. 

mechanic  must  perfect  lien,  or  not  prior,  155. 

mechanic  must  show  compliance  with  the  statute,  158. 

money  secured,  not  used  as  agreed,  155. 

money  used  for  payment  of  material,  157. 

money   used    in   payment  of   previous   mortgage,   157. 

mortgage   before   lien   attaches,   prior,   159. 

mortgage  dates  from  the  time  of  record,  161. 

mortgagee  bound  by  appearance  of  premises,  157. 

mortgage  must  be  bona  fide,  155. 

must  be  instrument  entitled  to  record,  161. 

old  debt  lifted,  affects  time,  155. 

omission  of  immaterial  matter  does  not  affect,  155. 

parties    bound    by    statement    in,    156. 

purchaser  at  judicial  sale  bound  by  record,  158. 

recording   after  delivery,  161. 

recording  before  delivery,  161. 

renewal  of,   does   not  lose   priority,   155. 

rests  upon  fact  of  filing  before  mechanic's  right  attacked, 
156. 

similar  to  liens  and  conveyances,  155. 

statutory   provisions  control,   155,   158. 

subcontractor  stands   in  same  position  as  principal,   158. 

technical  error  will  not  defeat,  159. 

unrecorded,  released  and  new  one  taken,  157. 

when  made  before  contract,  155. 
no  uniform  rule,  144. 
on  after  acquired  property — 

attorney's    fees    not   prior   to    lien,    162. 

building  in  place  of  one  burned,  162. 

building,  when  removed,   162. 

improvements  inure  to  benefit  of,  162. 

improvements    removed,    162. 

improvements  subject   to  mechanic's  lien,  162. 

money  secured  by  mortgage  used  in  building,  162. 

prior  to  mortgage,  when,  162. 

trade  fixtures,  how  affected,  162. 


INDEX.  779 

PRIORITY— Continued. 

IReferetices  are  to  sections.'^ 
of  lien  on  death  of  owner,  under  Ohio  statute,  51. 
of   subcontractor's   lien,   under   Ohio   statute,    89,   92. 
of  workmen's  lieus  in  case  of  insolvency,  148a. 
order  of  filing  claims  may  control,  146. 
should  be  determined   before   decree,   287. 
statutory  provisions  prevail,   144. 
time  of  filing  lien,  how  affects,  146. 
time  of  making  contract,  how  affects,  146. 
under  Indiana  statute,  84,  148a. 

PROCEEDINGS   IN  APPEAL, 

See  Eeroe. 

PROCEEDINGS  IN  ERROR, 

See  Eeboe. 

PROCEEDS  OF  SALE, 

See  Sale,  Distribution. 

how   distributed,    286. 

PROCESS, 

See  Service  of  Distribution. 

acts   constituting  waiver,    293. 

personal   service    required  to   give  personal   judgment,   293. 

service  of  summons,  233. 

PROFIT, 

allowed  subcontractor,  128. 
reasonable,  included,  126. 

PROMISSORY  NOTE, 

See  Note. 

described  in  petition,  2.52. 

description  of  in  statement,  176. 

description  in  statement,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

does  not  assign  debt,  167. 

giving  of  not  presumption  of  payment,  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

interest  on,   not  waiver,  177. 

maturity  of,  affecting  waiver  of  lien,  177. 

of  third  person,  waiver  when,  179. 

presumption    as   to   waiver,    256. 

priority  of  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  89. 


780 


INDEX. 


IReferences  are  to  sections. 1 
PROMISSORY  NOTE— Cotitinued. 

selling,    not   necessarily    waiver,    177. 

set  up   in  statement,   115. 

taking  of,  as  waiver,  176,  178. 

taking  of,  not  waiver,  under   Indiana  statute,  45a, 

PROMOTER, 

interest  liable,  140,  142. 

not  entitled  to  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

promotor  of  corporations,   140. 

PROOF, 

See  Issue,  Variance,  E\t:dence. 
must  correspond  with   allegations   of  pleading,   255. 

PROPERTY  COVERED  BY  LIEN, 

See  Materials.  Labor. 
apportioned  among  several   buildings,  135. 
appurtenance  by  itself,  138. 
block  of  houses  on  tract,  136. 
boundaries  of  land,  who  shall  define,  132,  133. 
building  erected  by  subscribers,  139. 

separate  from  land,  138. 

when  removed,  135. 
community  property,  142. 
co-tenant  cannot  bind  other  co-tenant,  140. 
court  may   apportion,   when,   136. 
covers  land  upon  which  work  is  done,  132,  133. 
curtesy,  140. 

destruction  by  fire,  how  affects,  141. 
division  of  land   after  building  erected,  136. 
entire  tract,  132,  133. 

error  to  decree  more  than  the  law  permits,  132,  133. 
equitable  title,  140. 
farms  included,  when,  134. 
fixture,  138. 

fund  realized  from  property  liable,  139. 
ground  rent,  141. 

heir  not  liable  for  lien  of  ancestor,  139. 
homestead,  142. 

incorporators  purchasing  property,  142. 
insurance  on  property,  137. 
interest  in  public  land,  140. 

interest  or  estate  of  person  making  contract,  139. 
joint  tenant's  interest  in  possession,  135. 
landlord's  interest,  141,  142,  143. 

for  improvements  by  tenant,  143. 


INDEX.  781 

[References  are  to  sections.'^ 
PROPERTY  COVERED  BY  "LV&N— Continued. 

land  necessary  for  purpose  of  building,  132,  133. 
leasehold  interest,  141. 
legal  title,  140. 

lien  attaches  to  all  on  lot,  135. 

lot  of  land  does  not  necessarily  mean  town  plat,  134. 
mechanic   must   ascertain   title  of   person  with   whom  he   con- 
tracts, 139. 
necessary  for  convenient  use,  134. 
option  for  purchase  does  not  make  vendor  liable,  143. 
owner   estopped   from  denying  ownership,   142. 
person  making  contract  must  have  ownership,  140. 
purchaser  in  possession  may  make  vendor's  interest  liable,  143. 
purchaser  of  leasehold  interest,  141. 
purchaser   under  executory  contract,  140. 
purchaser  under  deed  in  escrow,  140. 
rents  in  the  hands  of  receiver,  139. 
separate  buildings  on  different  lots,  134,  136,  137. 
separate  contiguous  lots  forming  one  whole,  135,  136,  137. 
separate  owners  joining  together,  136,  137. 
several  buildings  on  same  tract,  132,  133,  135. 
subcontractors  have  same  right  as  principal,  135. 
sublessee's   interest,  141. 
use  made  by  owner,  controls,  136. 
work  on  other  property,  132,  133. 

PROPERTY   DESCRIBED   IN   LIEN, 

described  in  claim  or  statement,  105. 

PROPERTY  SUBJECT   TO  LIEN, 

See  Fixtures. 

building  separate  on  land,  10. 

church,  10. 

college,  10. 

county  bridge,  10. 

court  house,  10. 

fire  bell,  10. 

homestead,  10. 

lunatic    asylum,   10. 

married  woman's  separate,  10. 

must  be  within  the  statute,  10. 

not  against  public  policy,  10. 

public  library,  10. 


7S2 


INDEX. 


[References  are  to  sections.'i 
PROPERTY  SUBJECT  TO  1.IEN— Continued. 
railroad,  10. 
school  buildings,  10. 
separate  articles  of  mill,  133. 
tearing  down  building,  10. 
waterworks,  10. 

PROPRIETOR, 

See  Owxee. 

PRO   RATA   PAYMENT, 

of  subcontractors,  under  Ohio  statute,  148. 

PRORATING  CLAIMS, 

under  Indiana  statute,  216. 

PUBLICATION, 

personal  judgment  cannot  be  had  under,  292. 
service  of  summons,  234. 

PUBLIC   BUILDINGS, 

lien  for  work  on,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

PUBLIC   LANDS, 

person  in  possession  has  lienable  interest,  140. 

PUBLIC  LIBRARY, 
not  liable,  10. 

PUBLIC   POLICY, 

lien  laws  founded  on,  44. 

PUBLIC   PROPERTY, 

not  liable  10. 

PURCHASE  MONEY  MORTGAGE, 

agreement  of  parties  control,  164. 

given  to  third   person,  164. 

must  be  simultaneously  made  and  recorded,  164. 

not  secret,  164. 

same  as  vendor's  lien,  164. 

PURCHASER, 

See  Priority,  Vexdor. 
acquires  rights  of  parties  to  suit,  281. 
before  suit,  276.  ' 

combination   between,   281. 


INDEX.  783 

[References  arc  to  sections.'] 
PURCHASER— Con^inwed. 

court  to  give  possession,  274. 

evidence  of  fraudulent  purchase,  258. 

may  pay  claim   to  save  property,  292. 

must  take  notice  of  condition  of  premises,  150. 

of  debt  or  claim,  167. 

of   imperfect   interest,   292. 

of  leasehold  interest  gets  tenant's  right,   141. 

owner,  when,  19,  24-26. 

pendente  lite,  275,  276. 

petition  against,  235. 

service  of  notice  on,  74. 

subrogated  to  rights  of  person  whose  debt  is  paid,  292. 

subsequent,  as  party,  225. 

succeeds  to  rights  of  lessee  on  sale,  282. 

takes  property  subject  to  lien,  150. 

title  does  not  vest  until  confirmation,  281. 

under  contract  and  possession,  11. 

under  order  of  sale,  280. 

when  takes  property  free  of  lien,  187. 

Q 

QUESTIONS  OF  LAW  AND  FACT, 

See  Evidence. 
building,   character  of,   267. 

completion  of,  267. 
commencement  of  work,  267. 
conclusion  of  law  is  not  a  finding  of  fact,  298. 
consent  of  owner,   267. 
identity  of  property,  267. 
time  of  filing  statement,  267. 

R 

RAILROAD  BRIDGE, 

See  Bridges. 

when  subject  to  lien,  12. 

RAILROAD    DEPOT, 

when  subject  to  lien,  12. 

RAILROAD  PROPERTY, 

not  liable,  10. 

subject  to  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 


784  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections. '\ 
RECEIVER, 

appointment  of,  affecting  right  of  subcontractor,  58. 

affecting  right  to  file  claim,  80. 
as  parties  to  action,  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 
entitled  to  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 
may  bring  action,   211. 
property  in  hands  of,  subject.  19. 
when  allowed,  263. 

RECORD, 

conclusive  proof  as   to  time,   159. 

conveyance  on,  entitled  to,  159. 

date  of,  159. 

how  made  up  in  appeal  or  error,  297. 

of  statement  of  principal  contractor,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

RECORDER, 

lien  filed  with,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 
subcontractors'  notice  to  be  filed  with,  87. 

RECORD    OF   MORTGAGE, 

constructive  notice  from,  161. 
dates  from  time  of,  161. 

rede:\iption, 

right  to,  283. 

same  as  in  courts  of  equity,  283. 

time  within  which  exercised,  283. 

REFERENCE, 

evidence  of,  264. 

when  court  should  make,  264. 

RELEASE, 

form  of,  valid,  189. 

full   consideration   not   required,   189. 

lien   extinguished   by,   189. 

need  not  be  executed  similar  to  deed  or  mortgage,  189. 

RELIGIOUS  SOCIETIES, 

See  Chtjeches. 

REMEDIES, 

under  Indiana  statute,  216. 

where  owner  suspends  work,  50,  51. 


INDEX.  785 

[References  are  to  sections.] 
REMOVAL  OF  BUILDING, 
action  for,  when,  199. 
affecting  priority  of  lien,  162. 
as  release,  189,  190. 

effect  on  priority,  under  Indiana  statute,  148a. 
waiver  of  lien,  186. 

RENT, 

liability  in  the  hands  of  receiver,  139. 

of  property  having  defective  title,  under  Ohio   statute,   285. 

right  to  lien  for,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

when   prior   to   land,   204. 

.  REPAIR, 

moving  building  not  repair,  13. 
priority  of,   under   Indiana   statute,   148a. 
taking  down  fixtures,  13. 
tools,  13. 

REPLEVIN, 

of  building,  282. 

REPLY, 

defective  petition  cannot  be  cured  by,  248. 

not  necessary  unless   answer  contains   new   allegations,   248. 

what  is  new  matter,  248. 

RESERVOIR, 

lien  for,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

RETROACTIVE   EFFECT, 

of  law,  7. 

REVIVAL, 

of  lien,  131. 

RULES  OF   PLEADING, 

answer,  235. 

generally  apply,  235. 

to  cross-petition,  247. 

to  reply,  248. 

S 
SALE   OF   PROPERTY, 

See  Assignment. 

buildings,  when  may  be  removed,  282, 

by  order  of  court,  divests  lien,  188. 

combiAation  to  effect  void,  281. 

50 


/50  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'\ 
SALE  OF  PROPKRTY— Continued. 

conduct  of,  controlled  by  statute,  280. 

confirmation  cures  defects,  prior  when,  281. 

converting  property  into  money  for  distribution,  278. 

deficiency  in,  284. 

distribution   according  to  court's  order,  293,  294. 

entire  property,  when  sold,  278. 

equity  may  grant  removal,  282. 

equity  will  protect  all,  281. 

impeached,  how,  281. 

objection  to  regularity  of,  278. 

parties  bound  to  know  the  practice  of  the  court,  281. 

parties  by  agreement  may  control,  281. 

part  of  premises,  sold  when,  281. 

prior  incumbrances  affected,  293. 

property  covered  by  lien  sold  first,  278. 

purchaser  protected  as  at  judicial  sale,  281. 

purchaser  subrogated  to  rights  of  claimant,  281. 

redemption  before,  283. 

redemption,  claim  of,  281. 

right  to  contest,  how  affected,  281. 

separate  sale,  should  be  separately  appraised,  280. 

set  aside,  purchaser  placed  in  statu  quo,  281. 

subsequent  lien,  279. 

title  vested,  281. 

transfers  all  rights   of  purchaser,   281. 

validity,  281. 

what  included  in  terms,    278,  279. 

who   makes   conveyance,   283. 

who  may  exercise   redemption,  283. 

SATISFACTION, 

failure  of  lienholder  to  satisfy  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  193. 

SCAFFOLDING, 

lien  for,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 
not  subject,  18. 

SCHOOL  BUILDING, 

no  lien  on,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 
not  liable,  10. 

SCHOOL  COMMITTEE, 

may  contract,  30. 


INDEX.  787 

[Reierences  are  to  secUons.'\ 
SCIRE  FACIAS, 

lien  enforced  by,  233. 

SEAL. 

omission   of   notary,   120. 

variance  between  the  pleading,  158. 

SEPARATE  AND   JOINT   LIENS, 
under   Indiana  statute,  45a. 

SEPARATE  BUILDINGS, 

statement  of  material  furnished  for,  117. 

SEPARATE  CAUSE   OF  ACTIONS, 
what  constitutes,  235. 

SEPARATE  LOTS, 

evidence  as  to  use,  258 
SEPARATE  OWNERS, 

itemized   statement  for,  117. 
SERVICE, 

of  notice  to  lienholder  to  commence,  under  Ohio  statute,  202. 

of  notice,  under  Ohio  statute,  78. 

of  subcontractors'  claim  on  owner,  under  Ohio  statute,  62. 

SERVICE  OF  SUMMONS, 
by  publication,  233. 

defective    can    be    remedied    only   by    new,    233. 
endorsement  on  writ,  234. 
jurisdiction  by  attachment,  234. 
length  of  time  of  service,  233. 
must  comply  with  the   statute,   233,   234. 
personal  required  for  personal  judgment,  233. 
pleading  must  disclose  kind  of  action,  233. 
proof,  233. 
seized   by   writ  of  scire  facias,   234. 

SERVICES, 

description  in  claim  or  statement,  108. 
nature  of,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

SET-OFF, 

may  be  pleaded,  246. 

of  claim  of  owner  against  principal  contractor,  under  Ohio  stat- 
ute, 70. 
when  allowed,  209. 


788  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  secUons.'\ 
SEWERS, 

lien   for,   under  Indiana  statute,   45a. 

right  to  lien  for  constructing,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

SHERIFF, 

service  of  notice  by,  78. 

SIDEWALK, 

improvements  in  subject  to  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

lien  for  repair  of,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

not  subject,  15. 

when  not  abutting,  44. 

SIGNATURE, 

agent,  118. 

at  the  top  of  bill,  118. 

attorney,   118. 

corporation,   118. 

on  contract,  32. 

partnership,  118. 

personal,    118. 

signing  verification  to  claim,  118. 

at  top  of  bill,  not  sufficient,  118. 

by  agent,  sufficient,  118. 

by  co-partnership,  118. 

by  corporation,  118. 

SMELTER, 

liable  to  lien,  12. 

SODDING  ABOUT  BUILDING, 
when  subject  to  lien,  14. 
whether  lien  for,  under  Ohio  statute,  44.     , 

SPECIFIC    PERFORMANCE, 

court  cannot  decree  in  satisfaction  of  lien,  273. 

STATEMENT, 

See  Claim  or  Statement,  Filing  Claim  or  Statement,  Itemized  State- 
ment, Notice. 

admissible  as  evidence,  260. 
attached  to  petition,  235. 
averments  in  petition,  244. 
burden  on  plaintiff  to  show,  257. 


INDEX.  789 

IReferences  are  to  sections.'] 
STATEMENT — Continued. 

description  of  land   and  notes,  under  Ohio  statute,   81. 

for  subcontractor's  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  62. 

itemized,  under  Indiana  statute,  83. 

itemized,  under  Ohio  statute,   83. 

must   conform  to   allegations   in   petition,   254. 

of  principal  contractor,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

of  subcontractor  to  principal  contractor,  92. 

right  to  tack  contracts,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 

strict  compliance  with  statute,  under  Ohio  system,  81. 

under  Indiana  statute,  83. 

under  Ohio  statute  to  describe  promissory  note,  81. 

STATUTE, 

See  Law. 

acquisition  of  lien  by  principal  and  subcontractor,  under  Indi- 
ana statute,  82. 

attorney's  fees,  under  Indiana  statute,  300. 

averments  of  petition  to  follow,  244. 

claim  for  wages,  under  Indiana  statute,  46. 

constitutionality    as    affecting   indemnity,    168,    169. 

construction    of    Ohio    statute    relating   to    direct   contract   with 
owner,  44. 

defining  owner,  Ohio,  28. 

equality  of  liens  on  same  job,  under  Ohio  statute,  147. 

failure  of  lienholder  to  satisfy  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  193. 

Indiana  statute  giving  lien,  45,  45a. 

in  force  at   time  obligation   becomes  fixed  determines  priority, 
151. 

in  force  at  time  of  taxing  costs,  will  control,  299. 

liberal  construction  as  to  form,  100. 

liberally  construed   as   to   enforcement  of   lien,   196. 

lien  on  fund,  under  Ohio  statute,  59. 

lien  on  contiguous  lots,   under   Ohio   statute,   137. 

lien  under  direct  contract  with  owner,  Ohio  statute,  44. 

notice  by  subcontractor  to  fellov/  laborers,  under  Ohio  statute. 
87. 

notice  to  owner  to  retain  payments,  under  Ohio  statute,  91. 

Ohio,  allowing  lien  for  running,  44. 

Ohio,   allowing  owner  to  require  lienholder  to   commence  suit, 
202. 

Ohio,  regulating  acquisition  of  lien  of  principal  contractor,  8. 

Ohio,   relating  to  contracts  with   married   women,   38,   39. 

Ohio,   requiring  contractor  to  defend  suits,  206. 

Ohio  statute  is  remedial,  81. 


790  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.^ 
STATUTE — Continued. 

owner  suspending  work,  under  Ohio  statute,  50,  51. 

penalty  for  wrongful  use  of  material,  Ohio,  23. 

personal   liability   of  owner,  under  Indiana  statute,  289. 

priority  of  subcontractors'  lien,  under  Ohio   statute,   89. 

proceedings  where  title  defective,  under  Ohio  statute,  285. 

pro  rata  payment  of  subcontractors,  under  Ohio  statute,  148. 

re-enactment  of  Indiana  statute,  45,  45a. 

reference  to,  in  statement,  100. 

remedies,    under    Indiana   statute,   216. 

remedies,  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 

remedy  of  subcontractor  against  contractor,  288. 

right  of  owner  to  require  lienholder  to  commence  suit,  203. 

service  of  notice,  under  Ohio  statute,  78. 

statement  of   subcontractor   to   principal   contractor,   Ohio   stat- 
ute, 92. 

strict  compliance  as  to  form  of  statement,  under  Ohio  statute, 
81. 

subcontractors'    lien,    under    Ohio    statute,    88. 

substantial  compliance,  119,   121. 

wrongful  payment  by  owner,  under  Ohio  statute,  69,  70. 

STATUTE  OF  FRAUDS, 
contract  under,  32. 

STATUTES   OF   LIMITATIONS, 

See  Limitation  of  Actions. 

STIPULATIONS   IN  CONTRACT, 

affecting  rights  of  subcontractor,  57. 

must  be  specific  to  relieve  owner  from  liability,  57. 

payments  in,  57. 

when  must  be  in  writing,  57. 

STREET, 

improvements  in  subject  to  lien,  under  Ohio  law,  44. 
not  subject,  15. 

STRICT   CONSTRUCTION, 
of  lien  laws,  44. 

STRIKING  OFF, 

See   Cancellation. 

of  lien  or  statement  when  allowed,   124. 


INDEX.  791 

\_References  are  to  sections.] 
STRUCTURE, 

bridge,  12. 

building,  12. 

character  subject,  under  Ohio  law,  44,  60. 

cooking  oven,  12. 

kind,  subject  to  subcontractor's  lien  under  Indiana  statute,  289. 

lime  kiln,  12. 

must  be  upon  land,  12. 

oil    well,   12. 

power  house,  12. 

telephone  poles,  12. 

temporary  fences,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

vessel,  12. 

SUBCONTRACTOR, 

action  by,  on  indemnity  bond,  172. 

actions  by,  under  Indiana  statute,  291. 

advanced  payments  affecting,   68. 

allegation  as  to  amount  due  from  owner,  241,  242. 

amount  due  not  exceeding  balance  due  from  owner,  127. 

averments  of  petition  by,  under  Ohio  statute,  21.5. 

bound  by  amount  due  principal,  210. 

bound  by  stipulations  in  contract,  55,  56. 

burden  on  to  prove  facts  upon  which  right  exists,  257. 

by  whom  lien  filed,  under  Ohio   statute,   88. 

cannot  reach  claim  for  unliquidated,  66. 

character  of  structure  entitling  to  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  60. 

character  of  work  of,  under  Ohio  statute,  61. 

claim  of  deducted  from  principal  contractor,  211. 

does   not  cover   damages,  128. 

not  beyond  indebtedness  of  owner  to  contracting,  67. 
conditions  precedent  to  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  88. 
distinction,   as  to   time   of  filing  lien   statement,    99. 
distribution  pro  rata,  127. 

duty  of  head  contractor  to  defend  suits  brought  by,  206. 
duty  of  owner  to  retain  funds  due,  under  Ohio  statute,  88. 
effect  of  abandonment  of  contract,  62. 
effect  of  death  of  head  contractor,  Ohio  statute,  39. 
effect  of  wrongful  payment  by  owner,  69,  70. 
entitled  to  reasonable  value,  128. 
equitable  claim  on  fund,  66. 
estoppel    by   consent    to    i)ay   contractor,    181. 

affecting   right   to   lien,   181. 

by    accepting    worthless    check,    181. 
extras  covered,  128. 


792  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.l 
SUBCONTRACTOR— ConfiJiwed. 

failure  of  principal  does  not  destroy  claim  in  toto,  128. 

form  of  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  88. 

includes  laborers,  58. 

includes    materialmen,    58. 

indemnity  bond,  how  affected  by,  168,  172. 

installments  due,  128. 

interest  on  claim,  275. 

receivership  does  not  affect,  66. 

form  of  petition  by,  215,  217. 

kind  of  services,  under  Indiana  statute,  289. 

kind  of  structure,  under  Indiana  statute,  289. 

lien   on   fund,   under   Ohio   statute,   59. 

may  object  to  assignment  of  claim,  167. 

must  file  itemized  account.  116. 

must  perfect  lien,  71. 

must  show  compliance  with  the  statute,  66. 

must  show   debt  against  principal  contractor,   200. 

must   show   performance   of  all  conditions,    200. 

name  in  claim  or  statement,  112. 

nature  of  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  289. 

necessary   party,    229. 

non-performance    of    principal    contract    affecting,    128. 

no  priority  between,  144,  145. 

notice  as  affecting  amount,  127. 

notice  as  affecting  priority,  154. 

notice  to  fellow  laborers,  under  Ohio  statute,  87. 

notice  to  owner  to  retain  payments  due  contractor,  91. 

notice,  under  Indiana  statute,  290. 

of  subcontractor,   58. 

of  subcontractor,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

of    subcontractor,   under   Ohio   statute,    60. 

order  on  funds  by  contractor,  66. 

payments  affecting  lien,  66,  195. 

payment  to  principal  contractor  affecting,  67. 

performance  of  contract,   64,  65. 

performance  of  principal  contract  affecting,  how,  64,  65. 

premature  payments  affecting,  68. 

priority  of  lien,  under  Ohio  statute,  92. 

property  subject  to  lien  of,  under  Ohio  statute,  88. 

pro  rata  payment  of,  under  Ohio  statute,  148. 

remedy  of,  against  principal  contractor,  under  Ohio  statute,  288. 

right  of  on  decease  of  owner,  under  Ohio  statute.  52. 

rights  of,  rest  on  lien,  286. 


INDEX,  793 

[References  are  to  sections. '\ 
SUBCONTRACTOR— Continued. 

rights  on  two  or  more  buildings,  127. 

rules  of  evidence,  258. 

same  right  as  to  amount  of  land  covered  as  principal  contrac- 
tor has,  135. 

set-off   of  claim   of   owner   against   principal   contractor,   under 
Ohio  statute,  70. 

settlement  with  principal  contractor,  under  Ohio  statute,  69,  70. 

statement  by  to  contractor,  admissible  evidence,  259. 

subrogated  to  rights  of  principal  contractor,  54. 

under  independent  contract,  127. 

when  and  how  lien  obtained,  under  Ohio  statute,  88. 

when    entitled   to    direct  lien,   47. 

who  are,   58. 

under  Ohio  statute,  60. 

SUBJECT  MATTER, 

questioned  at  any  time  of  proceedings,  296. 

SUBSTITUTION, 

substitution  of  parties,  230,  231. 

SUMMONS, 

See  Service  of  Summons. 

SUPERINTENDENT, 

labor  of,  disconnected  from  plans  and  specifications,  44. 

time  of  filing  lien  in  Ohio  as  dependent  on  acceptance  by,  81. 

SURETY, 

in  action  on  bond  may  use  any  defense  open  to  contract,  185. 

judgment  must  establish  lien,  184. 

not  entitled  to  enforce  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

on  bond  to  prevent  lien,  strictly  construed,  184. 

on  contractor's  bond  may  bring  action,  211. 

on   indemnity   bond,   168. 

SWING, 

not  subject,  12. 

T 

TANKS, 

subject  to  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  4oa. 

TAXES, 

prior  to  lien,  153. 


794  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'\ 
TEMPORARY  STRUCTURES, 

fences,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

TENANT, 

See  Leasehold. 
may  bind  landlord,  27. 

TENANTS  BY  ENTIRETY, 

estate  subject  to  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

TENANT  IN  COMMON, 

cannot  bind  co-tenant,  30. 
when  owner,  26. 

TIME, 

See  Filing  Cl.xim. 

averment  of  time  of  furnishing  material,  239. 
correct  date  ascertained  from  statements,  114. 
death  of  owner  does   not   affect,   94. 
for  filing  lien,   under   Ohio   statute,   81. 
for  filing  subcontractor's  claim,  under  Ohio  statute,  62. 
how  calculated,  71-73,  75. 

of  filing  lien  as  dependent  on  acceptance  of  materials  by  engi- 
neer, 81. 
of  filing  statement  of  principal  contractor,  under  Ohio   statute, 

81. 
of  rendering  services — 

determined  on  trial  from  statement,  113. 

entire  contracts,  114. 

erroneous  but  not  misleading,  114. 

fraudulent,  invalidates,  114. 

mixing  of  non-lienable  items,  113. 

must  come  within  statutory  time  limit,  113,  114. 

question  of  running  account  one  of  fact,  113. 

statement   must   show,   113. 

substantial  compliance   required,   113. 

sufficient   averment,   113,   114. 

variance   as  to  time,  114. 
presumed   that   materials  delivered  on  date   given,   114. 
method  of  computation,  under  Ohio  statute,  81. 
statement  must  show,  within  time  limit,  113. 
sufficient  averment  of  in  claim,  114. 
when  action  brought,  under  Indiana   statute,   216. 
within    which    claim    is   to    be    filed. 

abandonment  affecting,  97. 


INDEX.  795 

[References  are  to  sections.} 
TIME— Continued. 

amendment  of  after  time  has  run,  99. 
articles   purchased  on  credit,  94. 
cessation  of  work,  97. 
claim  filed   before   time  void,  95. 

collusion  to  injury  of  third  person,  99. 

completion  of  building,  95. 

certificate  of  architect,  96. 

contractor  cannot  extend   time,   97. 

death  of  owner  affects  time,  94. 

delay  unreasonable,  when,  95,  96. 

delivery  of  articles,  94,  97. 

distinction  between  contractors  and  subcontractors,  99. 

effect  to  be  given  statements,  in  claim,  96. 

extras  as  extending  time,  97,  99. 

fact  of  completion  of  building  determined  by  jury,  96. 

failure  of  ofiicer  to  endorse,  94. 

furnishing   under    running   contract,    98. 

incumbrances   do   not   affect,   94. 

last  date  excluded,  94. 

minor  details  will  not  extend  time,  96. 

must  be  within  statute,  94. 

new  contract  will  not  extend,  94. 

original    contract    determines    time,    95. 

owner's  acts  determining,  95. 

owner's  failure  to  accept,  when  determines,  97. 

receivership  does  not  affect,  94. 

secret  arrangement  cannot  extend,  94. 

separate   claims  for  separate   articles,   98. 

time  affected  by  successive  deliveries,  98. 

time   begins    to   run   from    last   act   in   execution   of  con- 
tract, 98. 

transfer  does  not  affect,  94. 

unreasonable  length  of  time  between  furnishing  different 
articles,  98. 

what  is   running  contract,   98. 

when  debt  is  due,  94. 

TIME  CHECKS, 

right  to  lien  on,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

TIN  GUTTERS, 

subject  to  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 


796  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.'\ 
TITLE, 

as  a  defense.  207,  208. 

claimant  of,  does  not  justify  personal  judgment,  292. 

evidence  of,  24. 

legal,  of  owner,  106. 

of  material,  when  vests,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

removal  of,  as  affecting  lien,  186. 

retention  as  affecting,  178. 

transfer  of,  187. 

transfer  of,  affecting  lien,  186. 

TOOLS, 

not  subject  to,  18,  132,  133. 

no  lien  for,  under  Ohio  statute,  44. 

TRANSFER, 

See  Assignment. 

TRENCHES, 

trench  diggers  entitled  to  lien,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a. 

TRIAL, 

See  Jury,  Evidence.  Burden  of  Pboof. 

Z09 

common  law  action,  treated  as,  when,  265. 

decree  upon  pleadings,  265. 

defendant  must  have  reasonable  time  to  pay,  265. 

dismissal  before,  263. 

dismissal,  when  allowed,  265. 

equitably  treated,  265. 

evidence,  order  of,  265. 

in  absence  of  defendant,  265. 

injunction  granted  when,  263. 

issue  of  fact  requires  testimony,  265,  266. 

jury,  when  entitled  to,  266. 

notice  of  place,  265. 

notice  of  time,  265. 

objection  to  testimony,  when  to  be  made,  265. 

procedure  in,  265. 

question  of  fact  for  the  jury,  267. 

question  of  law  for  the  court,  267. 

receiver  appointed,  when,  263. 

reference  in,  264. 

under  Indiana  statute,  216. 

view  of  jury,  266. 


INDEX.  79/ 

[References  are  to  sections.'\ 
TRUSTEE, 

as  party  to  suit,  228. 

under  will  may  bind  property,  140. 

TRUST  ESTATE, 

may  be  liable,  11. 

TRUSTS, 

See  Cestui  Que  Trust. 
cestui  que  trust,  as  owner,  under  Ohio  statute,  28. 

TURNPIKE, 

improvements  in,  subject  to  lien,  44. 

V 
VARIANCE, 

See  Evidence. 
claim  must  not  be  at,  100. 

in   statement  as   to   contract  with   proof  on   trial,   101. 
may  be  explained,  260. 

pleadings   must  conform    with   conditions   precedent,   254. 
proof  must  conform  to  averments  in  pleading,  254. 

VENDEE, 

acquiring  building  during  work,  130. 

VENDOR, 

See  Purchaser. 
holding  option  to  purchase  does  not  destroy  priority,   141. 
of  leasehold  interest,  141. 
purchasing  vendee's  right  makes  liable,  141. 
stipulation  that  title  should  remain  in,  not  waiver,  164. 
under  executory  contract,  party  to  suit,  230. 
when  not  owner,  19. 
when  owner,  26. 

VENDOR  AND  VENDEE, 

lien  on  estate  of  vendee  in  possession,  under  Indiana  statute,  45a 
liability  of  interest  of  vendee  in  possession,  under  Ohio  statute, 

44. 
when  owner,  26,  27. 

VENDOR'S  LIEN, 

See  Priority. 
generally  recognized,  163. 
improvements  by  tenant  affecting,  163. 
not  favored,  163. 
prior  to  mechanic's  lien,  when,  163. 


798  INDEX. 

[References  are  to  sections.l 
VENUE, 

See  Jurisdiction. 

of  action,  under  Ohio  statute,  215. 
of  action,  under  Indiana  statute,  216. 

VERDICT, 

affirmative   finding  of  material   matters,   269. 

conclusion  of  facts  submitted,  270. 

construction  of,  270. 

contradictory,  270. 

court  of  equity  may  conform  to  justice  and  facts,  269. 

definite  as  to  amount,  270. 

finding  of  facts,  all  must  be  construed  together,  269. 

form  and  requisites,  270. 

general,  under  Indiana  statute,  216. 

generally  establishes  right  to  lien,  269. 

necessity  for,  269,  270. 

respond  to  issues,  270. 

should  not  narrate  evidence,  269. 

sufficient  evidence  to  sustain,  269. 

VERIFICATION, 

See  Itemized  Statement. 

all  parts  of  statement  must  be  verified,  119. 

claim  must  be  verified,  when,  119. 

defective,  may  be  amended,  102,  120. 

is  not  evidence  of  correctness  of  account,  119. 

matter  as  jurisdictional,  120. 

not   required   unless   statute   so   provides,   119. 

of  affidavit,  under  Ohio  statute.  81. 

omission   of   notary's    seal,    120. 

on  information  and  belief,  120. 

personal  knowledge  of  affiant,  120. 

should  show  agency  when  made  by  agent,  119. 

substantial  compliance  of  statute  required,  119. 

sufficient,  244. 

sworn  statement,  what  is,  120. 

who  may  administer  oath,  120. 

VESSEL, 

See  Boats. 

not  subject,  12. 


INDEX.  799 

[References  are  to  sectio^is.'i 
W 
WAGES, 

claim  for,  under  Indiana  statute,  46. 

WAIVER  OP  ERRORS, 
and  defects,  122. 
as  a  defense,  207,  208. 

WAIVER  OF  LIEN, 

acceptance  of  drafts,  175. 

acceptance  of  other  property  as  payment,  175. 

action  on  bond,  185. 

advanced   payment,  180. 

agreement  not  to  have  a  lien,  180. 

agreement  not  to  look  to  owner,  180. 

agreement  not  to  make  lien  part  of  contract,  173. 

attempted  settlement,  180. 

bond  must  valid  to  be,  183. 

bond,  taking  of,  182. 

bond  to  be,  must  be  according  to  statutes,  182. 

bonds  to   waive   liens   liberally  construed,   182. 

cash  deposit,  179. 

chattel  mortgage,  taking  of,  178. 

collateral  security,   taking  of,  178. 

commencement  of  foreclosure  proceedings,  180. 

delay,  188. 

deposit  of  money,  183. 

discharge   in   bankruptcy,   189,   190. 

estoppel  may  affect,  180. 

express,  173,  174. 

extension  of  time  of  payment,  175. 

failure  to  preserve  as  the  law  provides,  175. 

foreclosure,  188. 

forged,  as  affecting,  178. 

forged  note  or  bond,  taking  of,  177. 

identity  of  claim  lost,  177. 

implied,  175. 

inconsistent  security,  175. 

inseparable  blending  of  llenable  and  non-lienab!e  items,  175. 

liability  on  bond  affected,  184. 

making  new  contract,  175. 

maturity  of  note  given,  :is  affected,  177. 

merger,  188. 

mortgage  on  same  property,  179. 

note  in  possession  at  the  time  suit  is  brought,  177. 

note  of  third  person,  taking,  179. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  836  839 


■'ifeijlplp 


